Dismissed¶53

Sri C R Srinivas v. Smt Rajashree

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2026WP/17102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (GM-CPC) upholding trial court order allowing public auction of house property in final decree proceedings; partition suit O.S.No.244/2011 decreed; F.D.P.No.6/2016 I.A.No.6 for auction and sharing of sale consideration among four shareholders; property 16 x 21 feet, division yielding 4x21 feet per shareholder infeasible; consent of judgment-debtor's counsel recorded by trial court; claimed property value Rs.16,00,000/- without supporting material; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Chitradurga; no error or perversity; writ petition rejected/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no error or perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court in allowing the application (I.A.No.6 directing public auction and sharing of sale consideration). ¶47

Sri C R Srinivas Vs Smt Rajashree — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.6 in F.D.P.No.6/2016 — allowing public auction of the house property and sharing of the sale consideration among the parties — can be interfered with/quashed through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

¶28

Court's answer

This Court finds no error or perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court in allowing the application (I.A.No.6 directing public auction and sharing of sale consideration).

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Endorsing the Trial Court's detailed reasons: division of the 16 x 21 feet property among the four shareholders would leave only 4x21 feet to each shareholder, a meager portion not feasible for utilization; hence ordering of public auction was proper.

¶47

Key takeaways

Observation on sale proceeds: it is open to the parties to the proceedings to themselves participate in the public auction and bid, and the Trial Court would share the sale consideration amount among the other share holders.obiter¶50
The petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court; the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly rejected.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), W.P. No. 17102 of 2022 (GM-CPC), decided 04.03.2026, Vijaykumar A. Patil, J. (oral order): Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga on I.A.No.6 in F.D.P.No.6/2016 (arising out of decreed O.S.No.244/2011 for partition and separate possession) — whereby the decree holder's application to conduct a public auction of a house property measuring 16 x 21 feet and share the sale consideration among the four shareholders was allowed — was rejected. The Court found no error or perversity in the Trial Court's finding, which had recorded detailed reasons that physical division would leave a meager 4x21 feet portion to each shareholder, not feasible for utilization. The Court further observed that the parties remain open to participate in the public auction and bid, with the Trial Court to share the sale consideration among the other shareholders. The petitioners' objection had noted the applicant's claim that the property was worth Rs.16,00,000/- without supporting material; the Court nonetheless found no perversity in allowing the application.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13103 WP No. 17102 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 17102 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI C.R. SRINIVAS S/O C.R. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶11

GNANAPRAKASH S/O C.R. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT KENCHANARAHATTY

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BEHIND DODDAPET CHITRADURGA TOWN

¶16

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501

¶17

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE)

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

AND:

¶20

SMT RAJASHREE

¶21

W/O D.R. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O THIPPESWAMY NILAYA SAVITHA COLONY, 1^ST CROSS NEAR RANGAIAHNA BAGILU CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13103 WP No. 17102 of 2022

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

PARVATI C S

¶25

W/O H.R. NAGENDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O PRASHANTH NAGARA 4TH CROSS NEAR ANJINAYYA TEMPLE CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHITRADURGA IN F.D.P NO.6/2016 ON IA NO.6 DATED 29.07.2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13103 WP No. 17102 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This petition is filed challenging the order 29.07.2022 passed on I.A.No.6 in F. D. P. No.6/2016 by the III Additional Civil Judge and J. M. F. C., Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short).

¶35

Sri B. M. Siddappa, learned counsel appearing

¶36

for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff has filed an application in F.D.P.No.6/2016 seeking for partition by conducting sale of the property and requested to share the sale consideration among the parties, which came to be allowed by the trial Court by incorrectly recording the finding that the petitioners have no objection to the said application. It is submitted that the petitioners have opposed the said application as is evident from the objection filed by them which is produced as Annexure-C to the writ petition. It is further submitted that the order

¶37

of the trial Court is without any application of mind as it proceeded to allow the application filed by the decree

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13103 WP No. 17102 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

holder and ordered to sell the property in public auction. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition.

¶41

Per contra , Sri Kantharajappa M. G., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the order of the F.D.P. Court and submits that the trial Court has clearly recorded the consent of the counsel representing the judgment-debtor in paragraphs 4 and 7 and proceeded to allow the application and no prejudice would be caused to the other side as the property is not divisible in view of its measurement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶42

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶43

The records indicate that respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.244/2011 for partition and separate possession, which came to be decreed. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 initiated the Final Decree Proceedings in

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13103 WP No. 17102 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

F.D.P.No.6/2016. The respondent No.1 filed an I.A.No.6 in

¶47

the said Final Decree Proceedings seeking prayer to conduct a public auction of the house property and share the consideration among the parties. The said application was opposed by the petitioners herein, wherein it is specifically pleaded that the applicant has claimed that the property is worth of Rs.16,00,000/-. However, no material is placed before the Court with regard to the said assertion. The trial Court considering the application under the impugned order, allowed the said application and directed to conduct public auction. It is to be noticed that the property in question is measuring 16 x 21 feet. The trial Court has recorded detailed reasons at paragraph 6, wherein it has categorically held that if the property is divided among the four share holders, measurement of 4x21 feet would fall to each of the share holders and such a meager portion of the property is not feasible for utilization and proceeded to order for conducting public auction. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13103 WP No. 17102 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

recorded by the trial Court in allowing the application. Insofar as consideration is concerned, it is open for the parties to the proceedings, also to participate in the public auction and bid and the trial Court would share the sale consideration amount among the other share holders.

¶51

With the above observations. I am of the view

¶52

that the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The Writ Petition

¶53

is devoid of merit and accordingly rejected .

¶54

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶55

KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri C R Srinivas v. Smt Rajashree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C R Srinivas v. Smt Rajashree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Munithayamma Vs Smt. Muniyamma

Sri. B.K. Krishnakumar Vs Sri B D Basavaraju

Mr. Muniraju .a Vs the Regional Manager

Sri. Arunkumar .D Vs the Managing Director

Smt H K Bhagyamma Vs B M Thippeswamy

Halligowda Vs Sri Santhosh Kumar C C