Sri B R Govindarajalu Naidu Vs Smt R Pramila — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri B R Govindarajalu Naidu Vs Smt R Pramila — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31851-DB RFA No. 1591 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1591 OF 2021 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI B.R. GOVINDARAJALU NAIDU SINCE DEAD BY LRS

1(a) G. YASHASWINI D/O. LATE B.R. GOVINDRAJALU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

1(b) G. SEVANTHI D/O. LATE B.R. GOVINDRAJALU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

Digitally signed by RAKSHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

SMT. A. RAJALAKSHMI W/O. SRI B.R. GOVINDRAJALU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.165/35 10TH B MAIN ROAD 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. R. PRAMILA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

1(a) B.S. THYAGARAJA S/O. LATE SRIRAMULU NAIDU K. AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31851-DB RFA No. 1591 of 2021

HC-KAR

1(b) PRASHANTH S/O. LATE SMT. R. PRAMILA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

1(c) MAHESH S/O. LATE SMT. R. PRAMILA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.48, 1ST MAIN C STREET, NEW GUDDADAHALLI MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-560 026.

…RESPONDENTS

(RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4-1-2019 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.7674 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-36), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

counsel for the respondents on main appeal and IA No.2/26.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31851-DB RFA No. 1591 of 2021

HC-KAR

The appellants have filed this appeal to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2019 passed in O.S.No.7674/2013 on the file of learned X XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36).

2. Respondent No.1 as plaintiff filed a suit before the trial Court in O.SNo.7674/2013 against the appellants/defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s half share in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. It is averred that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and defendant No.1 are the children of deceased Rajagopal Naidu and Smt.Pappamma. Defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. The parents of plaintiff and defendant No.1 had nine children and the plaintiff is the 8^th child and defendant No.1 is the 9^th child.

3. It is contended that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are joint family members. The plaintiff is having a share in the suit schedule property, but, the defendants refused to allot share to her. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition. After institution of the suit, there was no representation for the defendants on various dates and the defendants were placed ex-parte. Hence, the trial Court passed the judgment and

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31851-DB RFA No. 1591 of 2021

HC-KAR

decree dated 04.01.2019 and granted half share to the plaintiff in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal. It is contended that the trial Court has decreed the suit ex-parte .

4. Earlier, when the suit was dismissed for

non-prosecution without notice to the other party, later, the order was recalled and again, the trial Court passed the judgment ex parte .

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the matter requires remand as the impleading applicant is also one of the co-parcener and sister of the plaintiff, the matter requires full fledged trial.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents also would concede to the same. As the trial court proceeded ex-parte and the matter requires denovo trial, it requires remand.

Hence, we pass the following:-

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31851-DB RFA No. 1591 of 2021

HC-KAR

Accordingly, the judgment and decree

dated 04.01.2019 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.7674/2013 and consequently, the Final Decree proceedings arising out of the impugned judgment and

decree is also set-aside.

The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh trial.

All contentions are left open.

Both parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 05.08.2026 .

Impleading applications, if any, the same may be filed before the trial Court.

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

MN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4