- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 590 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE KIVUDU MUNIGA AGED ABOUT 77 YELARS R/AT NO.220, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE MURALI COLONY, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011 2. SMT. MADHAVI D/O SRI. MUNIYELLALPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.220, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE MURALI COLONY, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011 3. SRI. KRISHNA D/O SRI. MUNIYELLALPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.220, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE MURALI COLONY, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011 Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 4. SRI. GUNDAPPA S/O SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LR S SMT. KUSUMA W/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO.220, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE MURALI COLONY, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011 5. MASTER. RAKESH S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS MINOR, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. KUSUMA, R/AT NO.220, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE MURALI COLONY, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011 6. KUKMARI. ARCHANA D/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS MINOR, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. KUSUMA R/AT NO.220, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE MURALI COLONY,LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011 7. SMT. MUNIRATHNA D/O SRI. MLUNIYELLAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.220, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE MURALI COLONY, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011 8. SMT. ROOPA D/O SRI. MUNIYELLALPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.220, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE MURALI COLONY, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011 9. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.220, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE MURALI COLONY,LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011 10. SMT. DEEPA D/O SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.220, NEAR PILLEKAMMA TEMPLE MURALI COLONY,LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N R NAIK, ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 AND: 1. SRI K RAMAIAH S/O SRI. KALALPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/AT NO.107, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKADUGODI, BENGALURU 560 029. 2. SRI. C.R. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.107, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKADUGODI, BENGALURU 560 029. 3. SRI. C.R. GOPAL S/O LATE SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.107, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKADUGODI, BENGALURU 560 029. 4. SRI.C.R. KESHAVAMURTHY S/O LATE SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.107, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKADUGODI, BENGALURU 560 029. 5. SMT. C.R. SHASHIKALA D/O LATE SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEALRS R/AT NO.107, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKADUGODI, BENGALURU 560 029. 6. SRI.C.R. PRAKASH S/O LATE SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.107, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKADUGODI, BENGALURU 560 029. 7. SMT. C.R. USHA S/O LATE SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEALRS R/AT NO.107, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKADUGODI, BENGALURU 560 029. *8. SRI.C.R. GUNDARAJ S/O LATE SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 8(a) SMT G GAYATHRI, D/O LATE C.R. GUNDARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 8(b) SMT G SHRUTHI, D/O LATE C.R. GUNDARAJ AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 8(c) SRI SUDARSHAN, S/O LATE C.R. GUNDARAJ AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 8(a) to 8(c) ARE RESIDING AT NO.107, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKAADUGODI, BENGALURU - 560 029. (AS PER ORDER DATED 20.01.2025 AMENDED THE CASUE-TITLE) 9. SRI.C.R. LOKESH S/O LATEL SLHARADAMMA R/AT NO.107, 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKADUGODI, BENGALURU 560 029. 10. SMT. GANGA D/O LATE MUNISWAMY MAJOR, R/AT NO.220, *Page No.5 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 29.04.2026. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 11. SRI. DODDAYELLAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMY MAJOR, R/AT NO.220, JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 12. SRI. DODDAGUNDAPPA S/O LATE GUNDAPPA MAJOR, R/AT NO.220, JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 13. SRI. SHIVASHANKARA S/O LATE. YELLAPPA MAJOR, R/AT NO.220, JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 14. SRI. G. RAVISHNKAR S/O SRI. GUNDAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.220, JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 15. SRI. PILLARAJU S/O SRI. DODDA YELLAPPA MAJOR, R/AT NO.220, JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 *SRI. M. GUNDAPPA S/O SRI. MARISWAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS 16. SMT. DASAMMA S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS (SINCE DIED RESPONDENTS 17 TO 23 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF RESPONDENT NO.16 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS PER ORDER DATED 08.01.2025 AMENDED THE CAUSE TITLE) 17. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS MAJOR R/AT JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 18. SRI. LOKANATH @ LOKI S/O LATE GUNDALPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MAJOR R/AT JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 19. SRI. RAJU @ KAMAL S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS MAJOR R/AT JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. *Page No.7 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 29.04.2026. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 20. SRI. NARAYAN S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS MAJOR R/AT JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 21. SRI. KRISHNA @ KITTY S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MAJOR R/AT JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 22. SRI. RAGHU S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS MAJOR R/AT JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 23. SRI. SEENA S/O LATE GUNDALPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS MAJOR R/AT JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 24. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE CHIKKA GUNDAPPA, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 MAJOR, R/AT NO.220, JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. 25. SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA S/O SRI. KIVUDU YELLAPPA MAJOR, R/AT NO.220, JAIBHEEMANAGAR, 4TH MAIN, OLD MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDAN, ADV., FOR R2 TO R7 AND R9; V/O DT.17.3.2021 R1 IS DEAD AND R2 TO 9 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1; R15, R17 TO R23 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; V/O DT. 17.3.2021 NOTICE TO R10 TO R14, R24 AND R25 ARE DISPENSED WITH; V/O DT.03.12.2024 R16 IS DEAD, R17 TO R23 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R16; VIDE R(J) CIRCULAR NO.126/21 DT. 25.11.2021 R-8(A) TO R8(C) ARE SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2018 PASSED ON IA.NO.9 IN OS.NO.4123/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.9 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) R/W SEC.9 AND 151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the order dated 19.12.2018 on IA No. 9 in O.S. No.4123/2006 on the file of I Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. In terms of Order on IA No. 9, the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w Sections 9 and 151 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendants No.10 to 18 is allowed and the plaint is rejected. The application is allowed on the premise that the Court has no jurisdiction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants would submit that the Trial Court committed an error in holding that it has no jurisdiction as the suit is filed for partition and separate possession. It is also his contention that the plaintiff is the earlier owner of the suit property and though the property was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA for short), plaintiffs were not dispossessed and the plaintiffs still continued in possession of property and the BDA has not developed the property. The property is said to have been acquired in the year 1978. Till today there is no development and there is no dispossession. It is his contention that the defendants who - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 have no right, title and interest on the property are interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the property, as such, the plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession against defendant Nos.1 to 9 who are the family members and injunction is sought against defendant Nos.10 to 16 who are the trespassers. Thus, it is contention that the suit is maintainable. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants No.2 to 7 and 9 would submit that the plaintiffs have suppressed the fact that BDA has acquired the property in the year 1977, as such, the title is lost and the suit for partition is not maintainable and the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the plaint. 4. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 5. It is noticed from the impugned order that the Trial Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Said observation appears to be erroneous. Since the suit is for declaration, partition and injunction, the suit was maintainable - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 and the Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. However, the admitted factual position is, the property was acquired in the year 1978 by BDA and as such the plaintiffs lost title over the property as the acquisition proceedings has attained finality. That being the position, the suit for partition is not maintainable and the BDA is also not made a party to the proceedings. 6. Under these circumstances, the order of rejection of the plaint is to be upheld for the different reasons as assigned by this Court now. 7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants submits that the contesting respondents No.2 to 7 and 9 are trespassers and they have no right over the property and they are not in possession of the property and the plaintiffs are still in possession of the property and the BDA has not taken possession from the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs are to seek protection against their alleged long standing possession of the property, it is for the plaintiffs to file appropriate suit as advised in law. Under these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9109 RFA No. 590 of 2019 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim relating to the alleged possession over the property by respective parties. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22