- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB RFA No. 2132 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2132 OF 2018 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.99/A, 21ST MAIN MARENAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 078 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI NAVEEN REDDY M. V., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M. L. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE MUNIMANGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB RFA No. 2132 of 2018 1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O. LATE M. L. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. SRI SUDHAKAR BABU S/O. LATE M. L. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. SRI SHIVASAGAR S/O. LATE M. L. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.99/A, 1ST MAIN MARENAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR BENGALURU-560 078 4. SMT. SUSHMA D/O. LATE M. L. MUNIRAJU W/O. VIJAY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 5. SMT. GIRIVANI D/O. LATE M. L. MUNIRAJU W/O. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NO. CHOWDENAHALLI ANEKAL TALUK-562 106 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 6. SRI M. VENKATESH S/O. LATE MUNIMANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.99/A, 21ST MAIN MARENAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 078 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB RFA No. 2132 of 2018 7. SMT. V. SHANTHI D/O. M. VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT SURVEY NO.56 ROOPENA AGRAHARA MADIVALA POST, HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU-560 068 8. SRI MANJESH KUMAR S/O. LATE MUNIMANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.99/A, 21ST MAIN MARENAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 078 …RESPONDENTS (R1 – R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.01.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.2727/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND DECLARATION AND ETC., THIS RFA IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB RFA No. 2132 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present Regular First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908, impugning the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2018 passed in O.S No.2727 of 2012, filed by Sri Manjesh Kumar/respondent No.8 - brother of the appellants. 2. The respondent No.8 had filed the suit O.S.No.2727/2012 for partition, declaration and permanent injunction, in respect of the suit schedule properties. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues for determination:- 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, there is existence of the family and suit schedule properties are joint family properties? 2. Whether the defendants prove that, defendant No.9 paid Rs.31,00,000/- as good will? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as sought for? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB RFA No. 2132 of 2018 4. What order or decree? 2(i) Learned Trial Court decided Issue No.1 partly in favour of the plaintiff, whereas Issue No.2 has been decided against the defendants. Issue No. 3 has been partly allowed in favour of the plaintiff. However, no cost has been awarded. 2(ii) Learned Trial Court has held that the plaintiff would be entitled to get 1/3rd share in 50% of Item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit schedule properties as per the Joint Development Agreement. However, in respect of the suit schedule properties Item Nos.2, 3 and 5, the claim of the plaintiff has been rejected. The Trial Court has also rejected the relief in respect of the declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants / sisters of the plaintiff have executed relinquishment deed / release deed – Ex.D4 in favour of the plaintiff. The Ex.D-4 would suggest the appellants had received Rs.1,00,000/- each, which would clearly show that the plaintiff and his two brothers i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 had acquired absolute interest and title over Item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule properties and they succeeded as joint owners in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB RFA No. 2132 of 2018 respect of those properties. In fact, the plaintiff himself accepted before the Trial Court that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 would be entitled for equal share in Item Nos.1 and 4 and thus conceded the relinquishment deed. The Trial Court has decreed the suit in respect of the suit schedule properties in Item Nos.1 and 4, granting 1/3rd share in 50% of Item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit schedule properties. 3(i) Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that after the relinquishment deed was executed by the appellants, a separate document Ex.D5 was executed between the parties i.e., Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.10.2010, wherein the appellants were entitled for 15% of the built up area of the property i.e., 600 square feet each. 4. This was not an issue before the Trial Court in the partition suit. If the appellants have any right in respect of the Memorandum of Understanding, they could have enforced their right under the Memorandum of Understanding by taking appropriate proceedings. However, in respect of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge, we do not find that the same suffers from any illegality inasmuch as the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB RFA No. 2132 of 2018 has been partly decreed on the basis of the relinquishment deed executed by the appellants/defendants in favour of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending applications do not survive for consideration and they are also disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14