- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10380 RFA No. 668 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 668 OF 2018 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI HARISH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE V S NARASIMHA MURTHY, R/AT NO.113, 2ND MAIN, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570012. …APPELLANT (BY SRI N THEJESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SURESH N, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE V S NARASIMHA MURTHY, R/A NO.10/3, "SIMHADRI", 13TH C CROSS, AGRAHAR DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560079. 2. SRI SESHA PRAKSH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE V.S.NARASIMHA MURTHY, R/AT NO.244, 7TH MAIN, ALANAHALLI LAYOUT, MYSORE-570011. 3. SMT N VASANTHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O M C RAVISHANKAR, C/O GOPALGOWDA BUILDING, AVALAHALLI, S N POST, YELAHANKA, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10380 RFA No. 668 of 2018 BANGALORE-560064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y K NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI KUMAR K G, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT) SRI SANDEEP S SHAHAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (ABSENT) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.364/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2013 in O.S. No.364/2012 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysore. The suit for partition and separate possession is decreed granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff. 2. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, defendant No.2 is in appeal. Defendant No.1 who is the brother of the defendant No.2 remained ex- parte before the Trial Court. Defendant No.3, sister of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10380 RFA No. 668 of 2018 plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 supported the case of defendant No.2/appellant by filing written statement and urged that the property belongs to defendant No.2. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.2/appellant submits that the first floor of the property is constructed exclusively by defendant No.2/appellant and in case its value is determined and said value is given to defendant No.2, as his exclusive share, the defendant No.2/appellant has no objection for partition and separate possession of the properties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 would submit that the Court Commissioner has given a report stating that the property has to be divided into four parts and given the extent of the property, it is not feasible to divide the property into four parts. Hence, the property has to be sold and its value has to be apportioned among all the sharers. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10380 RFA No. 668 of 2018 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 also submits that the plaintiff will not claim share in the value of the first floor and also the mesne profits in respect of the first floor. It is urged that the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits only in respect of the ground floor. 6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 that in case the property is sold and its value is to be apportioned, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has no objection for the defendant No.2/appellant to retain the value of the first floor exclusively for himself and the remaining value of the property has to be apportioned equally among all. 7. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2/appellant submits that since respondent No.3/defendant No.3 has supported the case of the defendant No.2/appellant before the Trial Court and has agreed to the contention of the defendant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10380 RFA No. 668 of 2018 No.2/appellant, her share in the property is to be allotted to the share of defendant No.2/appellant. 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. The following point arises for consideration; Whether the appellant is entitled to exclusive share in the value of the first floor of the building in the suit property? 10. The records would reveal that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and it is noticed from the evidence that defendant No.2 has put up the first floor in the said property. This being the position, the Court is of the view that, the value of the first floor is to be given to the share of the appellant and appellant should consent for sale of the property and should also consent for allotting 1/4th share in the value of the property (excluding the value of the first floor) to the share of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10380 RFA No. 668 of 2018 11. Since respondent No.2/defendant No.1 has not contested the claim and has not disputed the claim of the appellant, defendant No.1/respondent No.2 shall not claim a share in the value of the first floor. However, defendant No.1/respondent No.2 is entitled to 1/4th value of the suit schedule property other than the value of the first floor. 12. Whether defendant No.3/respondent No.3 is willing to part with her share in the property in favour of the appellant is to be decided by taking her statement in the final decree proceeding which is pending before the Trial Court. 13. It is also made clear that the appellant shall not make any claim in respect of any improvement made in the ground floor of the suit schedule property. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed-in-part. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10380 RFA No. 668 of 2018 (ii) The judgment and decree dated 02.12.2013 in O.S. No.364/2012 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysore are modified. (iii) The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property except the value of the first floor. (iv) Defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property but not entitled to value of the first floor. (v) Defendant No.2/appellant is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property in addition to value of the entire first floor. (vi) Defendant No.3/respondent No.3, if she is willing to part with her share in the suit schedule property in favour of the appellant/defendant No.2, rest of the parties - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10380 RFA No. 668 of 2018 to the proceedings shall not object to the same. (vii) The plaintiff is also entitled to 1/4th share in the profits if any, derived from the suit schedule property other than the profits if any derived from the first floor. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59