The High Court declined admission to regular first appeals challenging a trial court decree in a suit for partition. The court held that any error regarding the inclusion of other properties left by the common propositus could be addressed in final decree proceedings for equitable partition, making further adjudication unnecessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1154 OF 2016 (PAR) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1153 OF 2016
IN RFA No. 1154/2016
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI M M ASHOKA, ADVOCATE) AND:
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NO.243/4, 18TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080
4(a) MISS AMSHU MEDAPPA D/O LATE P.AYANNA MEDAPPA AGED 20 YEARS NO.243/4, 18TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 080
4(b) MARANYA MADAPPA D/O LATE P.AYANNA MEDAPPA AGED 20 YEARS NO.243/4, 18TH CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 080
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOUTHAM NETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI T.I.ABDULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI RANJITH K.S, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A AND B);
VIDE ORDER DATED 05.09.2024, NO NECESSITY TO BRING LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.04.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.31/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADIKERI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE POSSESSION AND DECLARATION.
IN RFA NO. 1153/2016
BETWEEN:
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M M ASHOKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGED 20 YEARS NO.243/4, 18TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-860 080
4(b) MARANYA MADAPPA D/O LATE P.AIYANNA MEDAPPA AGED 20 YEARS NO.243/4, 18TH CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 080
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOUTHAM NETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI T.I.ABDULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI RANJITH K.S, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A AND B);
VIDE ORDER DATED 05.09.24, NO NECESSITY TO BRING THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.04.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.31/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADIKERI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri M.M. Ashoka, learned counsel for the appellant.
None appears for the respondents.
of Senior Civil Judge, Madikeri. The appeal in RFA No.1153/2016 is also filed against the same judgment, challenging the rejection of part of counter claim.
as plaintiffs and defendants as per their original ranking in the Trial Court.
Pattamada Medappa S/o Madaiah
Pattamada Medappa Pattamada Ponnappa
Chengappa
P.A.Chengappa
Aruna Kuttaiah Anjana Ponnappa
P.Aiyanna Medappa
the part of the counter claim by the purchaser, these appeals are filed on the following grounds:
“The judgment passed by the trial court is illegal and perverse without basis of law or facts and the same is liable to be set aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:38429 RFA No. 1154 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1153 of 2016
respondents 1 and 2. Further P.W-1 admitted that she doesn't know the members of Pattamada family and further admitted that her father had barrowed money before joining Navy and further barrowed money from the father of respondent No-3 to perform the marriage of the sister of the father of respondents No-1 and 2. Even though the father of respondents No-1 and 2 had relinquished his rights over the Schedule Properties and the same was not appreciated by the trial court.
the revenue records and inspite of the same, the trial court dismissed the suit.
appellant to include those properties in the Final Decree Proceedings and seek equitable partition with a prayer to allot the property purchased by him to his vendor’s share.
matter by admitting the appeals would not arise.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Admission is declined. (ii) Appeals are dismissed. (iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
MR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit for partition and granting half share to the plaintiffs?
Whether the sale deed executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant 3 binds the plaintiffs' share?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri C T Mandann
Smt Aruna Kuttaya
Smt Anjana Ponnapp
Sri P A Chengapp
Sri P Ayanna Medapp (since deceased by legal representatives: Miss Amshu Medapp, Maranya Madapp)
V Srisrandha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
