Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

S L Manjunath Rao Vs Late Smt S L Sreemathi — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
S L Manjunath Rao Vs Late Smt S L SreemathiS L Manjunath Rao v. Late Smt S L Sreemathi

Dismissed¶62

S L Manjunath Rao v. Late Smt S L Sreemathi

Karnataka HC29 Jun 2026RFA/1525/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Final Decree Proceedings; FDP No.25025/2011; O.S.No.10473/1993; decree dated 23.04.2011; Order XXVI Rule 13 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Section 96 CPC; Court Commissioner Report; division by metes and bounds; property not conveniently divisible; market value determination Rs.2,32,53,600/-; road access in partition of residential house property; Bengaluru; RFA No.1525 of 2021; High Court of Karnataka; Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.; decided 29-06-2026; NC: 2026:KHC:32184. Relevance: appellate non-interference where the FDP Court accepts the Commissioner's report that the property cannot be conveniently divided by metes and bounds and proceeds on the Commissioner's market-value assessment instead of allocating the road-abutting portion to the party in occupation.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and the FDP Court's order dated 03.02.2020 in FDP No.25025/2011 stands.

Why is it important?

The FDP Court committed no illegality, irregularity or perversity in passing the impugned order; hence there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the FDP Court. ¶59

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and the FDP Court's order dated 03.02.2020 in FDP No.25025/2011 stands.

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in FDP No.25025/2011 requires interference by this Court?

Court's answer

The FDP Court committed no illegality, irregularity or perversity in passing the impugned order; hence there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the FDP Court.

Ratio / Principle

The point for consideration is answered in the negative; consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC against the order dated 03.02.2020 in FDP No.25025/2011 (XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru), whereby the FDP Court accepted the Court Commissioner's Report following the decree dated 23.04.2011 in O.S.No.10473/1993. On the plaintiffs' application (Order XXVI Rule 13 r/w Section 151 CPC), a Commissioner was appointed to divide the residential house property by metes and bounds; he reported the property was not divisible so as to give defendant No.2 the entire road-abutting portion (on which he had constructed a building), and assessed total market value at Rs.2,32,53,600/-. Defendant No.2 sought the road-abutting half with plaintiffs taking the rear portion; plaintiffs insisted both take road-abutting shares, which defendant No.2 refused. Held: the FDP Court committed no illegality, irregularity or perversity; point answered in the negative; appeal dismissed. (Oral judgment, Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.; NC: 2026:KHC:32184)

A

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

S L MANJUNATH RAO

S/O LATE LAKSHMANA SASTRY S AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A PADMA KRUPA 3^RD MAIN ROAD GANGENAHALLI EXTENSION

BENGALURU – 560 032.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND: by THEJAS KUMAR N 1. LATE. SMT S L SREEMATHI Location: HIGH COURT OF W/O VENKATARAMAIAH KARNATAKA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LR’S

1(a) SRI. BHARATH BUSHAN S PINGALI S/O VENKATARAMAIAH PINGALI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.1154, 11^TH CROSS, 22^ND C MAIN ROAD

SECTOR-1, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 102.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021

HC-KAR

1(b) SMT. KAMALAMBA P V W/O SRI. SUDHAKAR K D/O VENKATARAMAIAH PINGALI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.1280, 21^ST B MAIN ROAD 11^TH CROSS, SECTOR -1 HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 102.

SMT S L MANJULA W/O KAMALESHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RESIDING BEHIND SPEECH AND HEARING INSTITUTE KARIYANNAPALYA HENNUR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 084.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. D R RAJASHEKHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A&B) AND R2)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED IN FDP No.25025/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.2 questioning the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in FDP No.25025/2011 by the XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru¹ , whereby, the FDP Court has accepted the Report of the Court Commissioner.

For the sake of convenience and easy

reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the FDP Court.

Brief facts of the case:

The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have filed applicationI.A No.1 under Order XXVI Rule 13 read with Section 151

of the CPC for appointment of Civil Engineer as Court Commissioner to effect division of schedule properties by metes and bounds in accordance with judgment and

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021

HC-KAR

decree dated 23.04.2011 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.10473/1993.

The FDP Court in the proceedings has appointed Court Commissioner to effect division of the petition schedule properties consisting of residential buildings.

The schedule property is the residential house property and it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 that he has constructed a residential building on the half of the front portion of the property by spending considerable amount which is abutting to the road. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 submitted that the portion of the property which is abutting to the road may be allotted to him and the rear side of the portion may be allotted to the plaintiffs as the rear side portion is having common passage and therefore, the plaintiffs will also have access to the rear side of the property.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021

HC-KAR

Further, it is submitted that the plaintiffs are

not residing on the schedule property and they are residing in another area and the rear side portion of the property is not required for their residential use and possession purpose. Therefore, when defendant No.2 has constructed house building by spending considerable amount, the appropriate access shall be given to the appellant/defendant No.2. Further, submitted that according to the Court Commissioner’s Report, either of three sketches are found to be proper and prays to issue direction to the respondents/plaintiffs to accept any one of the said three sketches prepared. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 prays to set aside the order passed by the FDP Court and remand the case to the FDP Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents submitted that both the appellant and respondents shall take their respective

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021

HC-KAR

portions/shares abutting the road and it will give an equitable relief as both will have access to the road and that is not accepted by defendant No.2. Hence, accepting the Court Commissioner’s report that the property is not capable of convenient division by metes and bounds, the FDP Court has rightly determined the market value of the property and passed an appropriate order. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents justified the order passed by the FDP Court and prays to dismiss the appeal.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and upon perusal of the records, the following point arise for my consideration:

Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in FDP No.25025/2011 requires interference by this Court?

The Court Commissioner has submitted a

Report along with the sketch stating that the property is not found to be divisible one so as to allot property to appellant/defendant No.2 for giving entire portion abutting

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021

HC-KAR

to the road. Accordingly, the Report is called for by the FDP Court for making valuation of the property. The Court Commissioner has submitted the Report of the market value of the schedule property and assessed the total property as Rs.2,32,53,600/-. Both the appellant and the respondents have their respective shares and the allotted shares are not in dispute.

The only grievance of the appellant/defendant No.2 is that the half of the schedule property situated abutting to the road, a building was constructed on it by spending some considerable amount and therefore the property abutting to the road cannot be divided and the respondents/plaintiffs may take the rear portion of the property. For which, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that if the rear portion of the property is allotted to the share of the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs will not have any access to the road. Therefore, they requested that the portion abutting to the road be made available to both appellant and respondents

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:32184 RFA No. 1525 of 2021

HC-KAR

and then it would be feasible to divide the property. To this, learned counsel for appellant/defendant No.2 did not agree. Therefore, in this context, the FDP Court found that the property is not conveniently divisible and hence, has taken the Report of market value of the property of the Court commissioner and accordingly passed order. Therefore, in any event, the FDP Court has not committed any illegality, irregularity or perversity while passing the impugned order. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the FDP Court. Therefore, I answer to the point in the negative . Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

UN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in FDP No.25025/2011 requires interference by this Court?¶50
The court held
The FDP Court committed no illegality, irregularity or perversity in passing the impugned order; hence there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the FDP Court.ratio¶59

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure96¶22 Order XXVI Rule 13¶32 151¶32

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 03.02.2020 in FDP No.25025/2011 whereby the FDP Court accepted the Report of the Court Commissioner (property held not conveniently divisible by metes and bounds; market value determined).¶22
XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru · 03.02.2020
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 filed I.A No.1 under Order XXVI Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC for appointment of a Civil Engineer as Court Commissioner to effect division of the schedule properties by metes and bounds in accordance with the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10473/1993.¶32
Prior proceeding
Trial Court passed judgment and decree dated 23.04.2011 in O.S.No.10473/1993.¶38
Prior proceeding
FDP Court appointed a Court Commissioner to effect division of the petition schedule properties consisting of residential buildings.¶39
Prior proceeding
Court Commissioner reported that the property was not found to be divisible so as to allot defendant No.2 the entire portion abutting the road.¶52
Prior proceeding
Court Commissioner assessed the total market value of the schedule property at Rs.2,32,53,600/-; the allotted shares of the appellant and respondents were not in dispute.¶55

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
S L Manjunath Rao (appellant; defendant No.2 before the FDP Court)¶8
Sri. Sampath A
respondent
Late Smt S L Sreemathi W/o Venkataramaiah (since deceased, represented by LRs) - Respondent No.1¶13
Sri. D R Rajashekharamappa
respondent
Sri Bharath Bushan S Pingali S/o Venkataramaiah Pingali (LR 1(a))¶14
Sri. D R Rajashekharamappa
respondent
Smt Kamalamba P V W/o Sri Sudhakar K, D/o Venkataramaiah Pingali (LR 1(b))¶18
Sri. D R Rajashekharamappa
respondent
Smt S L Manjula W/o Kaleshkumar - Respondent No.2¶19
Sri. D R Rajashekharamappa

Coram

AI extract

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMARauthor¶24

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 29 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 27 Dec 2021
Case no.: RFA/1525/2021
CNR: KAHC010118792021
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Regular First Appeal

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Smt Venkatalakshmi Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi
25 Jun 2026
Superintendent Engineer Vs Smt. Lakshmamma
25 Jun 2026
Sri S M Basavaraju Vs Smt. Supriya H a
25 Jun 2026
D a Narsimha Murthy Vs Sri D a Govardhan
29 Jun 2026
Sri D a Govardhan Vs Sri D a Narasimha Murthy
29 Jun 2026
Sri K S Veerabhadraiah Alias Keramulu Badri Alias K.V.S. Badri Vs Smt K S Chandrakantha Alias Jayashri
29 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

S L Manjunath Rao v. Late Smt S L Sreemathi, RFA/1525/2021 (KA), decided on 29 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Code of Civil Procedure96 · Order XXVI Rule 13 · 151

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Order dated 03.02.2020 in FDP No.25025/2011 whereby the FDP Court accepted the Report of the Court Commissioner (property held not conveniently divisible by metes and bounds; market value determined).XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru · 03.02.2020
Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 filed I.A No.1 under Order XXVI Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC for appointment of a Civil Engineer as Court Commissioner to effect division of the schedule properties by metes and bounds in accordance with the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10473/1993.
Trial Court passed judgment and decree dated 23.04.2011 in O.S.No.10473/1993.

View full history

Bench / Coram

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Parties & counsel