- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040572019 NC: 2026:KHC:50695 WP No. 7730 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7730 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NEELAKANTA S/O LATE SRI BYRAPPA, R/AT NO.4, APPURAYAPPA, "A" GALLI, MALDARPET, BANGALORE-560 002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOYEENULLA ABBASI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BHAGYALAXMI W/O LATE SHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SRI SATISH S/O LATE SHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. KUMARI BARATHI D/O LATE SHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT NO.3, C/66,2ND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, KALIDASA LAYOUT, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050. 4. SRI NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE BYRAPPA, Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040572019 NC: 2026:KHC:50695 WP No. 7730 of 2019 4(A) SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT RATHNAMMA W/O LATE B NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 4(B) SMT N GOWRAMMA D/O LATE B NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 4(C) SRI N KESHAVAMURTHY S/O LATE B NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4(D) SRI N VEERABHADRAPPA S/O LATE B NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4(E) SRI N LOKESH S/O LATE B NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4(F) SRI N SHANKAR S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 4(G) SRI N SHANTHAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS LR 4(A) TO (G) ARE R/AT NO.5, 1ST FLOOR, 17TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, OPP.RENUKA YELLAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560 027 5. SMT VENKATAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040572019 NC: 2026:KHC:50695 WP No. 7730 of 2019 5(A) SRI T PUTTARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAMMA & LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 5(B) SRI ESHWAR S/O LATE VENKATAMMA & LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 5(C) SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATAMMA & LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 5(D) SRI GURUMURTHY S/O LATE VENKATAMMA & LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS LR 5(A) TO (D) ARE R/AT NO.79, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MSJ POST, 8TH PHASE, J.P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 076 6. SMT HEMAVATHI W/O D E PUTTARAJU, D/O LATE BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT 25, 1ST MAIN, AMBEDKAR ROAD, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY IN FDP NO.118/2009 DATED Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040572019 NC: 2026:KHC:50695 WP No. 7730 of 2019 16.01.2019, ON MEMO WITH PF TO ISSUE COMMENER WARRANT WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is respondent No.2 in the Final Decree Proceedings, calling in question the order passed by the learned Final Decree Court appointing a Court Commissioner and issuing a commission warrant in respect of the schedule property. The petitioner has questioned the said order primarily on the ground that the schedule property is a residential house and, having regard to its nature, is incapable of being conveniently partitioned. It is therefore contended that the Final Decree Court erred in directing local inspection by appointing a Court Commissioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040572019 NC: 2026:KHC:50695 WP No. 7730 of 2019 3. The contention urged by the petitioner that the schedule property is incapable of partition cannot be adjudicated merely on the basis of the description of the property as a residential house. The question as to whether the property is capable of division by metes and bounds, having regard to its physical features, extent, number of shareholders and the nature of the construction existing thereon, necessarily requires an assessment of the property at the spot. The appointment of a Court Commissioner for conducting local inspection is therefore a step intended to facilitate the Final Decree Court in ascertaining the feasibility of effecting partition in terms of the preliminary decree. 4. The Commissioner, upon conducting the local inspection, is required to place before the Final Decree Court the relevant physical features of the property and indicate whether the property can conveniently be divided amongst the sharers in accordance with their respective Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040572019 NC: 2026:KHC:50695 WP No. 7730 of 2019 shares. If, upon such inspection, the Commissioner reports that the property is incapable of convenient partition or that division by metes and bounds, having regard to the number of sharers and the nature of the property, would result in substantial diminution of its market value, the Final Decree Court would thereafter be required to consider the rights of the parties in the light of Sections 3 and 4 of the Partition Act, 1893. 5. Therefore, at this stage, the challenge to the very appointment of the Court Commissioner and issuance of the commission warrant is misconceived. The Commissioner has yet to conduct the local inspection and submit his report. The petitioner would have an opportunity to raise all permissible objections to the Commissioner’s report before the Final Decree Court and to place before the Court his objections regarding the alleged indivisibility of the property and the consequences of partition. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040572019 NC: 2026:KHC:50695 WP No. 7730 of 2019 6. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is premature. No ground is made out for interfering, at this stage, with the order appointing the Court Commissioner. The petitioner is at liberty to file his objections to the Commissioner’s report, including his contention regarding the partibility or otherwise of the schedule property, before the Final Decree Court. Needless to observe, the Final Decree Court shall consider the said objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible objections to the Commissioner’s report before the Final Decree Court, the captioned writ petition stands disposed of. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified