Allowed¶97

Smt Jayamma v. Sri Nyatha Reddy

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025WP/7858/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (M.G.S. Kamal, J., 19-09-2025), WP No. 7858 of 2021 (GM-CPC), NC: 2025:KHC:37822: Article 227 petition by defendants 6-12 in partition suit O.S.No.1175/2012; exparte-order recall application under Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 CPC allowed despite 9-year delay; trial Court faulted for absence of finding on service of summons; confirmation deed dated 04.09.2023 by plaintiffs noted; cost of Rs.5,000 to plaintiffs; contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 01.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.1175/2012 on I.A.No.18 set aside; I.A.No.18 (recall of exparte order) allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000 to plaintiffs/respondents; all contentions of parties kept open to be urged before the trial Court; pending applications disposed with liberty to file before trial Court if required. ¶97

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Nyatha Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶97

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's rejection of I.A.No.18 was sustainable when the impugned order did not advert to the grounds urged by the petitioners and contained no specific finding on service of suit summons. +2 more

¶96

Court's answer

The trial Court erred in rejecting I.A.No.18 without adverting to the grounds urged by the petitioners; it ought to have specifically recorded its finding regarding service of summons, which is absent from the impugned order.

¶96

Ratio / Principle

Taking the submissions of counsel for the parties, and in view of the subsequent execution of the confirmation deed dated 04.09.2023 regarding the earlier partition requiring it to be brought on record before the trial Court, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 01.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.1175/2012 on I.A.No.18 is set aside.

¶97

Key takeaways

The application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.18 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000 payable to plaintiffs/respondents.ratio¶100
All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the trial Court.obiter¶102

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendant Nos.6 to 12 (petitioner Nos.1 to 7, claiming descent from Propositus-Thimma Reddy) challenging the order dated 01.04.2021 of the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) in O.S.No.1175/2012 (suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties), whereby their I.A.No.18 filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC to recall the order placing them exparte was rejected solely on the ground of a 9-year delay against the 90-day provision. Held: the impugned order did not advert to the grounds urged by the petitioners and lacked the specific finding on service of summons which the trial Court ought to have given; and in view of the subsequent registered confirmation deed dated 04.09.2023 executed by the respondent/plaintiffs confirming an earlier partition, which required to be brought on record before the trial Court, the petition was allowed, the order dated 01.04.2021 was set aside, and I.A.No.18 was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000 to the plaintiffs/respondents, with all contentions of the parties kept open. (Coram: M.G.S. Kamal, J.; decided 19.09.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:37822)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 7858 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS DEAD BY HER LRS

¶11

SRI PRABHAKARA M S/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶12

SMT VISHALAKSHI W/O SRI BHUMA REDDY D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE CARMELARAM POST

¶15

SARJAPURA ROAD BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 035.

¶16

SMT ARUNA W/O NAGARAJA REDDY D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE BELLANDUR POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 103.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT AMBUJA W/O PAPANNA D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 107.

¶20

SMT SUGUNA W/O LATE BABU @ NAGARAJA REDDY D/O MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NERIGA VILLAGE AND POST ANEKAL TALUK BEGNGALURU - 562 125.

¶21

SMT SAVITHA M W/O SRINIVAS D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KYLASANAHALLI VILLAGE BYRATHI POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 077.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI.V ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOs.2 TO 7)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SRI. NYATHA REDDY S/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YAERS

¶26

SRI VIJAYA REDDY S/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YAERS

¶27

MISS SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE JYOTHAMMA

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

AGED ABOUT 58 YAERS

¶32

MISS SUNITHA D/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YAERS

¶33

MISS SUJATHA D/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YAERS

¶34

ALL ARE R/AT HONGASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU -560 068.

¶35

SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O CHINNAPPA REDDY D/O THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI CARMELARAM POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 035.

¶36

SMT JAYAMMA W/O RAMA REDDY D/O THIMMA REDDY, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S

¶37

SMT. RAJAMMA 7(a). W/O KRISHNAREDDY D/O RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH AND JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.111, 4^TH CROSS BEHIND BAKE PALACE BAKERY ANNASANDRA PALYA BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶38

7(b) SMT. RANI D/O RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

AND JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.33, HOSTEL ROAD VIBHUTHIPURA, VIMANAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶43

SRI NAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.650/10, 1^ST CROSS 2^ND MAIN, L B SHASTRI NAGAR VIMANAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 017.

¶44

SMT. RUKMINI W/O SRINIVASA REDDY D/O LATE GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OLD ADDRESS R/AT NO.3/2, LINGAIAHNAPALYA MAIN ROAD ULSOOR BENGALURU - 560 008. PRESENT ADDRESS

¶45

R/AT LAKKUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 160.

¶46

SMT. NINGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶47

SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶48

SRI SURESH V., S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶49

SRI BABU V.,

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶53

D 10 TO D 13 ARE RESIDING AT DODDAKANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHU HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶54

SMT. KANTHAMMA D/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS)

¶55

14(a). SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE VENKATESH REDDY AND SMT KANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 37 YAERS R/AT GOVIND SHETTY PALYA OPP TATAPPA'S SHOP (ANGADI) ROAD ELECTRONIC POST, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE - 560 100.

¶56

SRI PAPAIAH REDDY S/O LATE THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)

¶57

15(a). NEELAMMA

¶58

W/O LATE K T PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶59

15(b). BABU P S/O LATE K T PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶60

15(c) SHAMALA P D/O LATE K T PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

DEFENDANTS NO.15(a) TO 15(c) ARE R/AT NO.29/2, MUNESHWARA NILAYA 1^ST CROSS, DODDA KANNAHALLI CARMELRAM POST, SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 035.

¶65

15(d). KOMALA P D/O LATE K T PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE - 560 105.

¶66

SRI NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS (SINCE DECESED BY LRS)

¶67

16(a) RADHAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶68

16(b). THIMMA REDDY S/O LATE K T NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶69

16(c). MANJULA D/O LATE K T NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶70

16(d). AHALYA @ SAROJA DEAD BY HER LRS

¶71

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

16(d)(1) SMT. POOJITHA W/O VEERESH D/O LATE SMT. AHALYA @ SAROJA AND LATE RAMESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.306, ASR OCTAVE APARTMENTS, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE CARMELARAM POST VARTHU HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 035.

¶74

…RESPONDENTS

¶75

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6, R8 AND R9;

¶76

VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2023 NOTICE TO R6 AND R7(b) IS DISPENSED WITH. R7(a) AND R14(a) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SIR P.G. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R13 SRI. B.V. SRINIVAS., ADVOCATE FOR R15 (a) TO (d) AND R16 (a to c) R16(d)(1))

¶77

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.18 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1175/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-19) AT ANNEXURE-F AND THEREBY ALLOW THE IA NO.18 FILED BY THE PETITIONER NOs.1 TO 7/DEFENDANT NOs.6 TO 12.

¶78

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶79

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶80

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

ORAL ORDER

¶84

Petitioners who are defendant Nos.6 to 12 are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.1175/2012 on the file of VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which their application in I.A.No.18 filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC came to be rejected.

¶85

The only ground on which the said application came to rejected is that petitioners herein had approached the trial Court seeking to recall the order placing them exparte after lapse of 9 years while the provisions provide only for 90 days. The suit is one for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they being necessary parties, trial Court ought not to have been too technical in rejecting the application without looking at the substantive reliefs being sought before the trial Court. He furnishes a copy of the genealogical tree of the family and submits that the petitioners are the descendants of Propositus-Thimma Reddy having their specific share in the suit

¶86

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

properties, without they being on record and without permitting

¶89

them to contest the matter, effective decree cannot be passed.

¶90

Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that after passing of the impugned order, respondent/plaintiffs have indeed executed a confirmation deed confirming the earlier partition that had taken place amongst the family members in respect of the suit properties. Said registered confirmation deed is dated 04.09.2023 and order impugned herein is required to be recalled to report subsequent development of execution of confirmation deed before the trial Court.

¶91

Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs fairly

¶92

submits that the petitioners are indeed necessary parties to the suit. However, he submits that they despite being aware of the proceedings pending consideration, remained reluctant only with an intention to protract the same. However, as regards execution of confirmation deed dated 04.09.2023 he submits that he has no instructions in the matter.

¶93

Heard and perused records.

¶94

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

Suit is one for partition and separate possession. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application is that suit summons have not been served on them personally. Impugned order does not indicate that the trial Court has indeed adverted to the grounds urged by the petitioners seeking to recall the order. Without adverting to the same, trial court has held that despite service of summons, the applicants did not appear and hence placed exparte. The trial Court ought have specifically given its finding regarding service of summons which is absent.

¶97

Notwithstanding the above and in view of subsequent development in the nature of execution of confirmation deed dated 04.09.2023 regarding earlier partition requiring the same to be brought on record before the trial Court, taking submissions of the counsel for the parties, petition is allowed and order dated 01.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.1175/2012 on I.A.No.18 is set aside. Application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.18 filed under Order IX Rule 17 CPC is allowed subject

¶98

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:37822 WP No. 7858 of 2021

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/payable to

¶101

plaintiffs/respondents.

¶102

All the contentions of the parties kept open to be urged before the trial Court.

¶103

In view of the disposal of the petition, pending applications if any stand disposed of with liberty to file the same before trial Court if required.

¶104

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶105

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS DEAD BY HER LRS¶10
petitioner
SRI PRABHAKARA M S/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS¶11
V Anand
petitioner
SMT VISHALAKSHI W/O SRI BHUMA REDDY D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS¶12
V Anand
petitioner
SMT ARUNA W/O NAGARAJA REDDY D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS¶16
V Anand
petitioner
SMT AMBUJA W/O PAPANNA D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS¶19
V Anand
petitioner
SMT SUGUNA W/O LATE BABU @ NAGARAJA REDDY D/O MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS¶20
V Anand
petitioner
SMT SAVITHA M W/O SRINIVAS D/O LATE MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS¶21
V Anand
respondent
SRI. NYATHA REDDY S/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YAERS¶25
Chandrashekar
respondent
SRI VIJAYA REDDY S/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YAERS¶26
Chandrashekar
respondent
MISS SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YAERS¶27
Chandrashekar
respondent
MISS SUNITHA D/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YAERS¶32
Chandrashekar
respondent
MISS SUJATHA D/O LATE JYOTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YAERS¶33
Chandrashekar
respondent
SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O CHINNAPPA REDDY D/O THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS¶35
Chandrashekar
respondent
SMT JAYAMMA W/O RAMA REDDY D/O THIMMA REDDY, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S (7(a) SMT. RAJAMMA; 7(b) SMT. RANI)¶36
respondent
SRI NAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS¶43
Chandrashekar
respondent
SMT. RUKMINI W/O SRINIVASA REDDY D/O LATE GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS¶44
Chandrashekar
respondent
SMT. NINGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS¶46
P.G. Ramesh
respondent
SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS¶47
P.G. Ramesh
respondent
SRI SURESH V., S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS¶48
P.G. Ramesh
respondent
SRI BABU V., S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS¶49
P.G. Ramesh
respondent
SMT. KANTHAMMA D/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS: 14(a) SRI SRINIVASA)¶54
respondent
SRI PAPAIAH REDDY S/O LATE THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS: 15(a) NEELAMMA; 15(b) BABU P; 15(c) SHAMALA P; 15(d) KOMALA P)¶56
B.V. Srinivas
respondent
SRI NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS (SINCE DECESED BY LRS: 16(a) RADHAMMA; 16(b) THIMMA REDDY; 16(c) MANJULA; 16(d) AHALYA @ SAROJA DEAD BY HER LRS, 16(d)(1) SMT. POOJITHA)¶66
B.V. Srinivas

Coram

AI extract

M.G.S. KAMALauthor¶79

Smt Jayamma v. Sri Nyatha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jayamma v. Sri Nyatha Reddy

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

S Sudesh Vs Syed Babajan

M/S Abhishek Developers Vs Smt Gowramma

Sri. B. N. Munivenkatappa Vs Sri. B. N. Muniraju

Smt Meera Ramu Vs Sri G v Ramesh

Marian Peres Bhatt Vs Sadananda Poojary

Tumkuru City Corporation Vs M/S Universal Transmission