Allowed¶53

Hedwig Rego v. Sri D Prakash Kumar

Partition Act, 1893 – S.4

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2025WP/21924/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 4 Partition Act 1893; dwelling-house; transferee of share; undivided family; valuation by Court; final decree proceedings FDP No.25014/2018; preliminary decree OS No.25278/2016; judgment debtors; stranger purchaser; Article 227 writ (GM-CPC); Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; WP No.21924 of 2022; order set aside and remanded; three-month timeline; offers of Rs.1,39,00,000/- and 99,00,000/-; XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge Mayo Hall.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 28.09.2022 set aside and the matter remitted to the Trial Court to consider the Section 4 application afresh in the light of the observations, as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶53

Hedwig Rego Vs Sri D Prakash Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly rejected the petitioners' application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 by leaving them to purchase respondent No.1's share at his quoted price (or else sell their own shares), instead of itself valuing the transferee's share and directing its sale to the petitioners.

¶31

Court's answer

Where a member of the family, being a shareholder, applies to buy the share of a transferee who has purchased a share in a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family, the Court shall itself make a valuation of the transferee's share in the manner it thinks fit and direct its sale to that shareholder; accordingly, the onus to value the shares rests on the Court.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court's approach — directing the petitioners to purchase the transferee's share at the rate quoted by respondent No.1 or, if not agreeable, to sell their own shares and wash off their hands — was erroneous; taking into account respondent No.1's offer and valuation material, the Trial Court should have valued respondent No.1's share and directed its sale to the petitioners.

¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition Act, 1893 — S.4 — share of stranger-transferee in dwelling-house of an undivided family bought during final decree proceedings — on an application by a family-member shareholder to buy the transferee's share, it is the Court's onus to make the valuation and direct sale to that shareholder; the Court cannot leave the applicant to accept the transferee's quoted price or sell out. Trial Court (XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru) wrongly rejected the IA in FDP No.25014/2018 (arising from OS No.25278/2016) where respondent No.1 had purchased the shares of judgment debtor Nos.1 and 2; order dated 28.09.2022 set aside and matter remitted for fresh decision within three months. Writ under Article 227 allowed by S. Vishwajith Shetty J. on 12.12.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53050 WP No. 21924 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 21924 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HEDWIG REGO

¶8

SINCE DECEASED AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.08.2025 LRs OF THEIR DECEASED ARE ON RECORD AS PETITIONER NO.2 RESPONDENTS 2, 3 , 4(DECEASED)

¶9

CANDIDA REGO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O LATE DENZIL CHARLES REGO R/A 5/33, ROSEWOOD CRESCENT LEANYER, NT 0812, AUSTRALIA.

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. DONALD D'SILVA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A 5C-221, KALYANA NAGAR 3RD BLOCK BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI RAVI JAGAN, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI D. PRAKASH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE DEIVASIKAMANI R/A NO.23, PRAKRUTHI FARM ANGALAPURA VILLAGE BANGALORE - 560 077.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

MARK REGO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE DENZIL CHARLES REGO R/A NO.23/3, REST HOUSE CRESCENT BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53050 WP No. 21924 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

LYNDSAY WATTS AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O LATE DENZIL CHARLES REGO R/A 220, AUBURN DRIVE DARTMOUTH NS, CANADA ALSO RESIDENG AT NO.23/3 REST HOUSE CRESCENT BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶20

MR. ALLAN REGO SINCE DECEASED AMENDED AS PER ORDER DTl18.08.2025 THE LRs OF THEIR DECEASED ARE LAREADY ON RECORD AS PETITIONER 2 RESPONDENT 2, 3 & 5.

¶21

MR. PAUL REGO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE DENZIL CHARIES REGO RESIDING AT NO.439, 14^TH CROSS 'A' BLOCK, VIJAYA NAGAR 3^RD STAGE, MYSORE - 570 017.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. D. BHUVANESHWARI, ADV., FOR R-1; SRI ANAND GOMES, ADV., FOR R-2, R-3 & R-5; V/O DTD:18.18.2025, P-2, R-2, R-3& R-5 ARE TEATED AS LRs OF DECEASED R-4;

¶24

(ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3 FILED A POWER OF ATTORNEY)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 28.09.2022 ANNEXURE-K, PASSED ON IA U/S 4 OF PARTITION ACT, IN FDP NO.25014/2018 BY XVIII ACCJ, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE AND ALLOW THE PRAYER MADE BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE APPLICATION THEY HAD MADE U/S 4 OF THE PARTITION ACT ANNEXURE-K.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:53050 WP No. 21924 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer setaside the order dated 28.09.2022 passed on the IA filed by the petitioners under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 in FDP No.25014/2018 by the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bengaluru.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

Petitioners herein, who are decree holders in OS No.25278/2016, which was filed seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property which is a dwelling house, have initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.25014/2018, which is pending consideration before the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bengaluru. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in FDP No.25014/2018 are the judgment debtors in OS No.25278/2016. It appears that during the pendency of the final decree proceedings, respondent No.1 herein had purchased the share of the judgment debtor Nos.1 and 2 under two separate registered Sale Deeds. It appears that respondent No.1 herein was impleaded as party

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53050 WP No. 21924 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

respondent No.5 in FDP No.25014/2018. Application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, was filed on behalf of the petitioners herein in FDP No.25014/2018, with a prayer to direct respondent No.1 herein to sell the shares of judgment debtor Nos.1 and 2 purchased by him to the petitioners at the value to be determined by the Court. The said application was opposed by respondent No.1 herein by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶37

It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 herein is a stranger and not a member of the family of the parties to the suit in OS No.25278/2016, out of which, FDP No.25014/2018 arises. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings, respondent No.1 herein, who is respondent No.5 in the final decree proceedings has purchased the shares allotted to judgment debtor Nos.1 and 2 under the preliminary decree passed in OS No.25278/2016. Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, reads as follows:-

¶38

" 4. Partition suit by transferee of share

¶39

in dwelling-house. —(1) Where a share of a

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:53050 WP No. 21924 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the court shall, if any member of the family being a shareholder shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such shareholder, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf.

¶44

(2) If in any case described in sub-section (1) two or more members of the family being such shareholders severally undertake to buy such share, the court shall follow the procedure prescribed by sub-section (2) of the last foregoing section."

¶45

From a reading of the aforesaid provision of law, it is abundantly clear that if a member of a family, being a shareholder makes an application to buy the share of a transferee, who has purchased the share from other members of the family, the Court shall make a valuation of such share of the transferee in the manner it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to the member of the family, who is a shareholder. In the case on hand, respondent No.1 herein, who has

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53050 WP No. 21924 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

purchased the shares of judgment debtor Nos.1 and 2 has offered to sell the said two shares to the petitioners herein for a total sum of Rs.1,39,00,000/- and on the other hand, he has offered to purchase the two shares of the petitioners herein at 99,00,000/-. The onus to value the shares of the transferee for

¶49

the purpose of enabling the member of the family, who is shareholder in the property to purchase the same is on the Court. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has observed that petitioners are at liberty to purchase the share from respondent No.1 herein/transferee at the rate quoted by him and if not agreeable, the petitioners are at liberty to sell their shares and wash off their hands. This approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. Taking into consideration the offer made by respondent No.1 herein and also after collecting necessary material regarding valuation of the property in question, the Trial Court should have valued the share of respondent No.1/transferee and directed sale of said share to the petitioners who have filed application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893. Under the circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:53050 WP No. 21924 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.09.2022 passed on IA filed by the petitioners under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 in FDP No.25014/2018 by the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bengaluru, is setaside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court to consider the said application afresh in the light of observations made herein above.

¶54

It is needless to state that the Trial Court shall pass orders on the application as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Hedwig Rego v. Sri D Prakash Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hedwig Rego v. Sri D Prakash Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. C Mohan Sonu Vs Sri. H R Chandra @ Ramachnadra

Govindappa Vs Sri Rangappa

Smt Geetha Ramesh Vs Sri Goolaiah

C K Shilpashree Vs Yashowdamma

Smt.Haneefabi Vs Mohammed Yousuff

M/S Casablanca Estate Vs Mohammed Mukarram @ M S Mukarram