HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8633 WP No. 7085 of 2022 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 7085 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. V.BHARATHI W/O SRINIVAS, D/O LATE VENKATAPPA AND LATE CHIKKA ANKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.68, 4TH CROSS, BHATTARHALLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKARA SEERI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A.N.MANJUNATH S/O A.U.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2. A.N.MUNEGOWDA S/O A.U.NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT ADURU VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 049. 3. A.U.NAGARAJU S/O LATE URUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 4. SMT. JAYAMMA HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8633 WP No. 7085 of 2022 - 2 - W/O A.U.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 5. A.N.VENKATARAJU S/O A.U.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 6. SHASHIKALA D/O A.U.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 7. UMARANI D/O A.U.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT ADURU VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 049. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.GANGARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R5; R1 TO R7-SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED.13.01.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED 4TH ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN OS NO. 283/2019, VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8633 WP No. 7085 of 2022 - 3 - ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge an order dated 13.01.2022 passed in O.S.No.283/2019 by the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). The learned Trial Court by the impugned order, has passed an order on a preliminary issued framed. 2. None appears for the Respondent. By an Order dated 12.07.2022, the proceedings before the learned Trial Court have remained stayed. Given the pendency of this case and the interim order passed, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity since it requires the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint to seek a declaration when no such relief was sought for learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that in a previous proceeding filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, a HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8633 WP No. 7085 of 2022 - 4 - declaratory decree has already been obtained. Reliance is placed on the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1408/2011 captioned Smt.Ankamma and others Vs. A.N.Manjunath and another. 3.1 It is further averred by the learned counsel that in terms of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1408/2011 dated 13.06.2013, the petitioner (who was plaintiff No.4 in the said suit) and three others were declared as joint owners of the suit schedule property. 3.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff further submits that this judgment and decree forms part of the Trial Court record and that it is also referred to in paragraph No.14 of her plaint before the Trial Court. However, the Impugned Order has held that since there is a cloud over the title of the petitioner/plaintiff, and thus a preliminary issue needs to be framed to decide her title. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants does not refute this submission. He however submits that the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8633 WP No. 7085 of 2022 - 5 - decree obtained is only with respect to the Schedule A property and thus, the issue is requisite for the ownership of Schedule B property. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner/plaintiff had previously filed O.S.No.1408/2011 seeking the relief of declaration, declaring the plaintiffs therein to be the joint owners of the suit schedule property and also to declare that the compromise entered into by the defendants in O.S.No.366/2009 dated 24.10.2011 is not binding on the plaintiffs and also for grant of an order of permanent injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, petitioner appeared as plaintiff No.4. The said suit was partly decreed by the learned Trial Court. The order in the said suit is extracted below: “The plaintiffs are declared as absolute joint owners of the suit schedule property and possession of the property. Further it is hereby declared that the compromise obtained by the defendants in O.S.366/2009 dated 24-10-2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge/Fast Track Court III, Rural District, Bangalore in respect of suit schedule property, which is mentioned as item No.3 of the suit schedule is not binding on plaintiffs. Further the relief of permanent injunction is hereby rejected. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8633 WP No. 7085 of 2022 - 6 - Parties to bare [sic bear] their own costs.” 5.1 The suit was decreed qua the schedule property referred to below: “SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.65/2, measuring 1 Acre 3 guntas, situated at Aduru Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Banglare East Taluk, Bangalore District and bounded on the: East by : Basavanna Devara Inamthi Land Presently land belongs to Subbappa West by : Land belongs to Asif Mekhri Saheb North by : Land belongs to Munacha Adappa Presently D Venkatasway Gowda’s land South by : Land belongs to Eeranna, Presently A.V. Munivenkatappa’s Land” 5.2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present suit, O.S.No.283/2019 in which the petitioner/plaintiff has stated in paragraph No.14 about the decree passed in the first round of litigation in O.S.No.1408/2011 qua the suit HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8633 WP No. 7085 of 2022 - 7 - schedule ‘A’ property. Paragraph No.14 of the plaint is extracted below: “14. The Plaintiff further submits that, when the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 1408/2011 in favour of the Plaintiff, her Aunt and her brothers, they became the absolute joint owners in possession of the suit schedule A property and further declare that the Compromise obtained by the defendants in O.S.No.366/2009 dated 24-10-2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge/Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, in respect of the suit schedule A property which is mentioned as Item No.3 of the suit schedule in O.S.No.366/2009 is not binding on the Plaintiff, her aunt and her brothers, the defendants have no any manner of right, title, interest and muchless possession over the suit property at any point of time.” 5.3. The plaint in O.S.No.283/2019 has been filed seeking the following relief in respect of schedule ‘A’ as well as schedule ‘B’ properties as under: “a) Declare that the alleged Compromise Final Decree obtained by the Defendant No.5 in O.S. No. 366/2009 dated 7-10-2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge/Fast Track Court-III/, IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru in respect of the suit schedule-B property. of the which is mentioned as "B" Schedule Allotted to Defendant No.5 (A.N.Venkataraju) ie. Item No.3/serial No.3 Schedule of the said Compromise Final Decree which as null and void. b) To declare that the alleged Final decree registered, as Document No. BNS-1-10788/2016-17, Book-1, stored in C.D. No. BNSD517 dated 9-11-2016, registered in the office of the Senior Sub Registrar, Banaswadi, Bangalore is Null and void, in so for as schedule-B property is concerned. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8633 WP No. 7085 of 2022 - 8 - c) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case with court costs, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE-A PROPERTY All the piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 65/2, measuring 1 Acre 03 guntas, situated at Aduru Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore District and bounded on the: East by: Basavanna Devara Inamthi Land Presently land belongs to Subbappa, West by: Land belongs to Asif Mekhri Saheb North by: Land belongs to Munacha Adappa Presently D.Venkataswamy Gowda's land, South by: Land belongs to Eeranna, presently A.V. Munivenkatappa's land. SCHEDULE-B PROPERTY All the piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 65/2, measuring 0-20 guntas, out of total extent of 1 Acre 03 guntas, situated at Aduru Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore District and bounded on the: (as stated in the final Decree in District O.S.No.366/20019) East by: Land of Munegowda S/o Subbappa West by: Property belongs to Plaintiff North by: Now land belongs to B. Munegowda South by: Land of Padmavathi and Jaganmathe 6. Concededly, from an examination of the decree passed on 13.06.2013, which is extracted above, it can be HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8633 WP No. 7085 of 2022 - 9 - seen that petitioner/plaintiff and three others were declared as joint owners of the schedule property, corresponds to schedule ‘A’ property in the suit in O.S.No.283/2019. However, this decree does not grant any declaration qua the schedule ‘B’ property are not before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff at this stage, fairly concedes that she would be required to prove her ownership qua schedule ‘B’ property alone. 8. In view thereof, the Impugned Order is modified directing the learned Trial Court to examine the decree already obtained by the petitioner/plaintiff on 13.06.2013 and thereafter pass appropriate orders. 9. The petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN/HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA