- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4532 WP No. 2114 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2114 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI T L SRINIVASA S/O LATE T LAXMAPPA AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DIST 577213 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S.RAVINDRA HOLLA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI D T BABU S/O D THIMMAPPA AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SMT VEENA S W/O LATE KUMAR D T AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. SRI D K MARUTHI S/O LATE KUMAR D T AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT THERU STREET DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DIST 577 213 4. SMT USHA W/O LATE T L NAGARAJAPPA AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS 5. SRI KUSHAL Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4532 WP No. 2114 of 2026 S/O LATE T L NAGARAJAPPA AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS 6. SRI NIKIL S/O LATE T L LNAGARAJAPPA AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DIST 577 213 7. SRI GOVINDAPPA S/O SHIVANI RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 8. SRI SHANTHARAJU S/O SHIVANI RAMAPPA AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS 9. SRI NAGENDRA S/O SHIVANI RAMAPPA AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS 10. SRI SHIVANI RAMAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGE ABOUT MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 10 ARE R/A DEVARAHALLI VILALGE SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TQ DAVANAGERE DIST 577 552 11. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O VASAPPA AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A THIPPAGONDANAHALLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DIST 577 213 12. SMT SUSHEELAMMA W/O SHANKARAPPA AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A B R PROJECT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4532 WP No. 2114 of 2026 BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST 577 301 13. SMT PREMA W/O LAKSHMANAPPA AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS AGE NOT KNOW R/A ISSOR VILAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST 577 427 14. SMT SHARADA W/O AMATEKOPPA AGE MAJOR AGE NOT KNOW R/A AMATEKOPPA VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST 577 427 15. SRI PALAKSHAPPA S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGE ABOUT 79 YARS 16. SMT RANJITHA D/O PLAKSHAPPA AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS 17. SRI MADHU S/O PALAKSHAPPA AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.15 TO 17 ARE R/O IDUVALLI MANE AMTEKOPPA VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST 577 427 18. SMT LEELAMMA W/O LOKESHAPPA AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A SURAHONNE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST 577 217 19. SRI SURESH S/O LATE T RANGAIAH AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4532 WP No. 2114 of 2026 20. SMT SUMARANI D/O LATE T RANGAIAH AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS 21. SMT GEETHA D/O LATE T RANGAIAH AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.19 TO 21 ARE R/A DEVARHALLI VILLAGE SANTHEBENNURU HOBLI CHANNAGERI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 552 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-MODIFY/SET ASIDE THE CONDITION IMPOSED IN THE ORDER DTD 18.12.2025 IN IA NO. 1 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN R.A NO. 64/2025, INSOFAR FILING OF UNDERTAKING AFFIDAVIT BY STATING THAT THEY WILL COMPLY THE DECREE OF THE TRAIL COURT IS THEY ULTIMATELY FAILED IN APPEAL AND THEY WILL MAKE GOOD THE LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN VIEW OF FILING OF R.A NO. 64/2025, AS PER ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the appellant in R.A.No.64/2025 is directed against impugned order passed on I.A.No.1 by the First Appellate Court, whereby the application I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner was allowed by the First Appellate Court by holding as under: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1 1. Learned counsel for the appellants has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4532 WP No. 2114 of 2026 filed this I.A. U/O.41 Rule 5 R/W. Sec.151 of CPC seeking to stay the operation, execution and implementation of the order dated 30/08/2025 passed by the trial court in FDP No.15/2020 till disposal of this appeal. 2. Along with this application, the first appellant has filed his affidavit by contending that in FDP No.15/2020 the court commissioner was appointed and he submitted the report. But the report of the court commissioner is hazardous and not revealing true state of fact. The trial court brushed aside the same and venture to allow the petition by directing the office to draw final decree in accordance with the commissioner report. Now the respondents are making hectic efforts to register the same before office of Sub Registrar Channagiri. They moved a petition before DDLR and they are making preparation to get possession of the property allotted to their share. If they succeeded this appellants will put to great hardship. Hence prayed to stay the operation of the order passed by the trial court dated 30/08/2025. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 3 contested this application by filing detailed objection by contending that FDP court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree passed by the trial court which is confirmed by the Hon’ble High - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4532 WP No. 2114 of 2026 Court. The trial court has rightly accepted the commissioner report in the FDP proceedings. There is no error committed by the FDP court. There is no fault can be found in accepting the commissioner report by the trial court. Suit is filed in the year 1990. Even after more than 3 decades this respondents No.1 to 3 are not able to enjoy the fruits of the decree. Only to drag on the proceedings this appeal is filed. It is nothing but abuse of process of the court. Hence prayed to reject the application. 4. Heard arguments and perused the records. 5. Now the point for determination is as follows: 1) Whether the appellants have made out sufficient grounds to stay the operation of the order passed by the trial court dated 30/08/2025 in FDP No.15/2020 as prayed in I.A.No.1? 6. On the basis of the materials available on record, finding to the above point is in the Affirmative for the following: REASONS 7. Point No.1:- I have gone through the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4532 WP No. 2114 of 2026 entire materials available on record. In this case there is no dispute about the preliminary decree passed by trial court in O.S.No.23/1990. The dispute is only with respect to the commissioner report. The records reveals that, this appellants had also filed RFA.736/2007 before the Hon’ble High Court. In the order dated 03/12/2018 Hon’ble High Court has observed that, the final decree must be in accordance with the preliminary decree and there cannot be in deviation. 8. Now the contention of the appellants is that report of the court commissioner is not in accordance with the preliminary decree passed by the trial court. It is also the contention of the appellants that the trial court has not consider the objection filed by the appellants to the commissioner report. 9. Record reveals that even though there was objection by the appellants, the court commissioner was not examined before the trial court. Without examining the commissioner the trial court has accepted the report. Under such circumstances it is just and proper to stay the order of the trial court dated 30/08/2025 to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. No doubt the original suit is of the year 1990. That alone cannot be a ground to reject the application of the appellants. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4532 WP No. 2114 of 2026 Filing of appeal is a statutory right given to the appellants. If subsequent actions are taken on the basis of the order of the trial court dated 30/08/2025, the purpose of filing this appeal will be defeated. Reasonable condition will meet the situation. Hence aforesaid point is answered in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following : ORDER I.A.No.1 filed by the appellants U/O.41 Rule 5 R/W.Sec.151 of CPC is hereby allowed. The operation, execution and implementation of the order dated 30/08/2025 passed by the trial court is hereby stayed till disposal of this appeal on following condition. Appellant No.1 to 4 shall file undertaking affidavit by stating that, they will comply the decree of the trial court if they ultimately failed in this appeal and they will make good the loss sustained by the respondents in view of filing of this appeal. Issue intimation to trial court accordingly.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondents is dispensed with. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4532 WP No. 2114 of 2026 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the imposition of condition upon the petitioner-appellant by the First Appellate Court would tantamount to curtailing/restricting/limiting the right of the petitioner-appellant to challenge the judgment and decree ultimately to be passed by the First Appellate Court. The submission is placed on record. 4. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims in the appeal in R.A.No.64/2025 pending before the First Appellate Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition without interfering with the impugned order and by issuing certain directions. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) Appellant Nos.1 to 4 shall file an undertaking affidavit as directed in the impugned order within a period of 4 weeks from - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4532 WP No. 2114 of 2026 the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the First Appellate Court. (iii) It is made clear that filing of affidavit of undertaking by the appellant Nos.1 to 4 in R.A.No.64/2025 will not tantamount to or have the effect of curtailing/limiting/restricting the right of the appellants to challenge the final judgment and decree to be passed in R.A.No.64/2025 by the First Appellate Court. (iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open to be decided by the First Appellate Court and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. (v) Subject to the aforesaid directions and liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the final judgment and decree to be passed by the First Appellate Court, petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33