Ms. Gowramma Vs Ms. Mangalamma

MS. GOWRAMMA W/O. LATE MUDDAMAGADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT MALLARA BANUVADI POST AND VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU5-562 123.

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶11

MR. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE MUDDAMAGADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT MALLARA BANUVADI POST AND VILLAGER, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-562 123.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MS. MANGALAMMA W/O. LATE GOPALAIAH, W/O. LATE MUDDAMAGADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.701, ANURAJ NILAYA,

¶16

5TH CROSS, SHRIRAMA HOSPITAL ROAD,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19447 WP No. 20112 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SUNKADAKATTE, VISWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶20

MS. SHARADAMMA S/O. LATE MUDDAMAGADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT KADUR HOBLI, HADAGIRI POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 120.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MANJANNA M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2025 PASSED IN FDP NO.15/2024 ON IA 1/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA VIDE ANNEXURE -A.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this writ petition, the petitioners–defendant Nos.1

¶28

and 3 (respondents before FDP Court) have called in question the order dated 15.03.2025 passed on application filed by respondent No.1 herein under Order XVI Rule 13 of CPC by the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala (hereinafter

¶29

referred to as the ‘FDP Court’ for short) in FDP No.15/2024, whereby the said application has been

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19447 WP No. 20112 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

allowed and a commission warrant has been issued for

¶33

demarcation of the properties.

¶34

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶35

to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in Original Suit.

¶36

Respondent No.1–plaintiff filed a suit in

¶37

O.S.No.105/2013 for partition and separate possession. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 05.02.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.15/2024. Being aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the petitioners herein have filed a Regular Appeal in R.A.(FR) No.148/2024 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ for short). In the meantime, by the impugned order dated 15.03.2025, the FDP Court has issued a commission warrant for demarcation of the

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19447 WP No. 20112 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

properties. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a Regular Appeal has been filed and the same is pending consideration before the Competent Court/First Appellate Court. It is further submitted that if the final decree proceedings are concluded, the appeal itself would be rendered infructuous.

¶42

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and examining the records, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court can proceed with the final decree proceedings. However, since the petitioners have already filed a regular appeal against the preliminary decree and the same is pending consideration, their rights need to be protected. If the final decree is passed before the appeal is decided, the appeal becomes infructuous.

¶43

In view of the above, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move the regular appeal and file an

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19447 WP No. 20112 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

application seeking for interim relief before the First

¶47

Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court is directed to consider the same by the end of June 2026.

¶48

However, the FDP court shall continue with the proceedings in FDP No.15/2024 but shall not draw final decree till the consideration of the application filed before the First Appellate Court seeking interim relief.

¶49

With that observation, the writ petition is disposed

¶50

of.

¶51

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶52

HA

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67

Ms. Gowramma v. Ms. Mangalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Gowramma v. Ms. Mangalamma

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. K R Shivakumar Vs Smt. O Chikkaveeramma

Govindaraju Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Sri Byanna

Sri. C. R. Mahadeva Vs C. N. Srinivasa

Sri Syed Sadiq Ahmed Vs Sri a T Prakash

Sri Mahadeva Rao Vs Smt Savithramma

Smt.Ramakka, Vs Sri.B.R.Siddaramu