- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. S L MANJUNATH RAO S/O LATE LAKSHMANA SASTRY S AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A PADMA KRUPA 3RD MAIN ROAD GANGENAHALLI EXTENSION BENGALURU – 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMPATH A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(a) LATE. SMT S L SREEMATHI W/O VENKATARAMAIAH SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LR’S SRI. BHARATH BUSHAN S PINGALI S/O VENKATARAMAIAH PINGALI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.1154, 11TH CROSS, 22ND C MAIN ROAD SECTOR-1, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 102. Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021 1(b) SMT. KAMALAMBA P V W/O SRI. SUDHAKAR K D/O VENKATARAMAIAH PINGALI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.1280, 21ST B MAIN ROAD 11TH CROSS, SECTOR -1 HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 102. 2. SMT S L MANJULA W/O KAMALESHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RESIDING BEHIND SPEECH AND HEARING INSTITUTE KARIYANNAPALYA HENNUR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D R RAJASHEKHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A&B) AND R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED IN FDP No.25025/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.2 questioning the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in FDP No.25025/2011 by the XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru1, whereby, the FDP Court has accepted the Report of the Court Commissioner. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the FDP Court. Brief facts of the case: 3. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have filed application- I.A No.1 under Order XXVI Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC for appointment of Civil Engineer as Court Commissioner to effect division of schedule properties by metes and bounds in accordance with judgment and 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021 decree dated 23.04.2011 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.10473/1993. 4. The FDP Court in the proceedings has appointed Court Commissioner to effect division of the petition schedule properties consisting of residential buildings. 5. The schedule property is the residential house property and it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 that he has constructed a residential building on the half of the front portion of the property by spending considerable amount which is abutting to the road. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 submitted that the portion of the property which is abutting to the road may be allotted to him and the rear side of the portion may be allotted to the plaintiffs as the rear side portion is having common passage and therefore, the plaintiffs will also have access to the rear side of the property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021 6. Further, it is submitted that the plaintiffs are not residing on the schedule property and they are residing in another area and the rear side portion of the property is not required for their residential use and possession purpose. Therefore, when defendant No.2 has constructed house building by spending considerable amount, the appropriate access shall be given to the appellant/defendant No.2. Further, submitted that according to the Court Commissioner’s Report, either of three sketches are found to be proper and prays to issue direction to the respondents/plaintiffs to accept any one of the said three sketches prepared. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 prays to set aside the order passed by the FDP Court and remand the case to the FDP Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents submitted that both the appellant and respondents shall take their respective - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021 portions/shares abutting the road and it will give an equitable relief as both will have access to the road and that is not accepted by defendant No.2. Hence, accepting the Court Commissioner’s report that the property is not capable of convenient division by metes and bounds, the FDP Court has rightly determined the market value of the property and passed an appropriate order. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents justified the order passed by the FDP Court and prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and upon perusal of the records, the following point arise for my consideration: Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in FDP No.25025/2011 requires interference by this Court? 9. The Court Commissioner has submitted a Report along with the sketch stating that the property is not found to be divisible one so as to allot property to appellant/defendant No.2 for giving entire portion abutting - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021 to the road. Accordingly, the Report is called for by the FDP Court for making valuation of the property. The Court Commissioner has submitted the Report of the market value of the schedule property and assessed the total property as Rs.2,32,53,600/-. Both the appellant and the respondents have their respective shares and the allotted shares are not in dispute. 10. The only grievance of the appellant/defendant No.2 is that the half of the schedule property situated abutting to the road, a building was constructed on it by spending some considerable amount and therefore the property abutting to the road cannot be divided and the respondents/plaintiffs may take the rear portion of the property. For which, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that if the rear portion of the property is allotted to the share of the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs will not have any access to the road. Therefore, they requested that the portion abutting to the road be made available to both appellant and respondents - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021 and then it would be feasible to divide the property. To this, learned counsel for appellant/defendant No.2 did not agree. Therefore, in this context, the FDP Court found that the property is not conveniently divisible and hence, has taken the Report of market value of the property of the Court commissioner and accordingly passed order. Therefore, in any event, the FDP Court has not committed any illegality, irregularity or perversity while passing the impugned order. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the FDP Court. Therefore, I answer to the point in the negative. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56