Disposed

Sri R Krishnamurthy v. Smt Nanjamma

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2026WP/2377/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging orders directing the sale of indivisible partitioned property. The High Court found no procedural error, allowed parties to participate in the sale, and directed the lower court to re-issue the proclamation for a fresh sale.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of without interfering with impugned orders; FDP Court directed to re-issue proclamation and conduct fresh sale.

Sri R Krishnamurthy Vs Smt Nanjamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:46342 W.P. No.2377/2023 C/W W.P. No.97/2024

¶2

¶3

CNR: KAHC010058592023

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.2377/2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.97/2024 (GM-CPC)

¶10

IN W.P. No.2377/2023:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. R. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O DODDARAMEGOWDA AGED 53 YEARS JODINERALAKERE VILLAGE NELAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. MAYANNA GOWDA N.R. ADV.,)

¶15

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. NANJAMMA D/O LATE NANJAIAH W/O SRI NARASIMHAIAH NO 12, 2ND CROSS SHANKAR LAYOUT NANJAMMA AGRAHARA CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE 560018.

¶18

SMT. LINGAMMA @ NINGAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:46342 W.P. No.2377/2023 C/W W.P. No.97/2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CNR: KAHC010058592023

¶22

SMT. DEVAMMA D/O LATE SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED 62 YEARS.

¶23

SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED 60 YEARS.

¶24

SRI. ANANTHARAJU S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED 56 YEARS.

¶25

SRI. S. NATARAJU S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED 53 YEARS.

¶26

SRI. S. DAYANAND S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED 51 YEARS.

¶27

SMT. S. GEETHADEVI D/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED 49 YEARS.

¶28

SMT. S. DHANALAKSHMI D/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED 43 YEARS.

¶29

SRI. N.C. GIRISH S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED 43 YEARS.

¶30

SRI. S. SHANTHARAJA S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED 40 YEARS.

¶31

SMT. S. MAMATHADEVI D/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA

¶32

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:46342 W.P. No.2377/2023 C/W W.P. No.97/2024

¶35

CNR: KAHC010058592023

¶36

AGED 38 YEARS.

¶37

R2 TO R11 ARE ALL R/AT NO.2, 3RD CROSS NANJAPPA LAYOUT AUDUGODI, BANGALORE.

¶38

MRS. RATHNAMMA W/O MR. MUDDE GOWDA DAUGHTER IN LAW OF MR. MADHVARAYA MAJOR

¶39

R/AT HARALAKERE VILLAGE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶40

MRS. SUSHEELAMMA D/O MR. NANJAIAH

¶41

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

¶42

MR. N.R. MAHENDRA S/O DODDARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶43

MRS. SRIMATHI W/O THIMMAPPA GOWDA AGED 43 YEARS.

¶44

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O SRINIVASA GOWDA AGED 36 YEARS.

¶45

R13 TO R15 ARE R/AT JODINERALAKERE VILLAGE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:46342 W.P. No.2377/2023 C/W W.P. No.97/2024

¶50

CNR: KAHC010058592023

¶51

(BY SRI. V.S. SHAM SUNDAR, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. THOMAS V. PETER, ADV., FOR R2 TO R11 SRI. PRATHEEP K.C. ADV., FOR R12 SRI. DAYANANDA K.G. ADV., FOR R13 TO R15)

¶52

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT AT BANGALORE IN FDP NO.137/2008 ON IA NO.7 UNDER SECTION 2 OF PARTITION ACT DATED 05.12.2022, AS PER ANNEXURE-E & ETC.

¶53

IN W.P. NO.97/2024:

¶54

BETWEEN:

¶55

SRI. R. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O DODDARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS JODINERALAKERE VILLAGE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶56

...PETITIONER

¶57

(BY SRI. MAYANNA GOWDA N.R. ADV.,)

¶58

AND:

¶59

SMT. NANJAMMA D/O LATE NANJAIAH W/O SRI. NARASIMHAIAH NO.12, 2ND CROSS SHANKAR LAYOUT CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560018.

¶60

SMT. LINGAMMA @ NINGAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S.

¶61

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:46342 W.P. No.2377/2023 C/W W.P. No.97/2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

CNR: KAHC010058592023

¶64

SMT. DEVAMMA D/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶65

SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶66

SRI. ANANTHARAJU S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶67

SRI. S. NATARAJU S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶68

SRI. S. DAYANAND S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶69

SMT. S. GEETHADEVI D/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶70

SMT. S. DHANALAKSHMI D/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶71

SRI. N.C. GIRISH S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶72

SRI. S. SHANTHARAJU S/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶73

SMT. S. MAMATHADEVI D/O SIDDAIAH AND LATE LINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶74

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:46342 W.P. No.2377/2023 C/W W.P. No.97/2024

¶77

CNR: KAHC010058592023

¶78

R2 TO R11 ARE R/AT NO.2, 3RD CROSS NANJAPPA LAYOUT AUDUGODI, BANGALORE.

¶79

MRS. RATHNAMMA W/O MR. MUDDEGOWDA DAUGHTER IN LAW OF MR. MADHVARAYA MAJOR

¶80

R/AT HARALAKERE VILLAGE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶81

MRS. SUSHEELAMMA D/O MR. NANJAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

¶82

MR. N.P. MAHENDRA S/O DODDARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶83

MRS. SRIMATHI W/O THIMMAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶84

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O SRINIVAS GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶85

R13 TO R15 ARE

¶86

R/AT JODINERALAKERE VILLAGE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶87

...RESPONDENTS

¶88

(BY SRI. V.S. SHAM SUNDAR, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. PRATHEEP K.C. ADV., FOR R12 R2 TO R11, R13 ARE SERVED)

¶89

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:46342 W.P. No.2377/2023 C/W W.P. No.97/2024

¶92

CNR: KAHC010058592023

¶93

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT AT BANGALORE IN FDP NO.137/2008 ON I.A. NO.7 UNDER SECTION 2 OF PARTITION ACT DATED 31/10/2023, AS PER ANNEXURE-G & ETC.

¶94

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶95

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

¶96

ORAL ORDER

¶97

W.P.No.2377/2023 is filed challenging the order dated 05.12.2022 and W.P.No.97/2024 is filed challenging the order dated 31.10.2023, both the orders passed in FDP No.137/2008 by XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions

¶98

Judge, Bengaluru (for short, ‘ the FDP Court ’).

¶99

Heard Sri.Mayanna Gowda N.R., learned

¶100

counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.S.Sham Sundar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Sri.Thomas V.Peter, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 11,

¶101

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:46342 W.P. No.2377/2023 C/W W.P. No.97/2024

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

CNR: KAHC010058592023

¶104

Sri.Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the respondent No.12, Sri.Dayananda K.G., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.13 to 15 and perused the material available on record.

¶105

The respondent No.1 had initiated the final decree proceedings in FDP No.137/2008 seeking to draw the final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree in O.S.No.6915/1994. In the said final decree proceedings, respondent No.1 herein filed an application under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 seeking prayer for sale of Item No.2 of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. The said application

¶106

was allowed by the FDP Court vide order dated 05.12.2022. It is to be noticed that the FDP Court appointed the Court Commissioner who submitted the report. The report of the Court Commissioner indicates that Item No.2 of the schedule ‘A’ property cannot be divided into four parts as per the preliminary decree on account of the small size of the site area. Taking note of

¶107

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:46342 W.P. No.2377/2023 C/W W.P. No.97/2024

¶110

CNR: KAHC010058592023

¶111

the said aspect, the FDP Court has rightly allowed the application and ordered for sale of the property.

¶112

It is to be noticed that the FDP Court further on 31.10.2023 issued the sale proclamation and sale warrant to be conducted. I do not find any procedural error in passing the impugned orders as the Court Commissioner has categorically observed that the property covered in the application filed by respondent No.1 herein is not divisible. Hence, the FDP Court considered the said aspect and proceeded to order for sale. I do not find any error in the impugned orders calling for interference in the present petitions.

¶113

It is needless to observe that parties to the FDP

¶114

proceedings are permitted to participate in the sale process.

¶115

With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petitions are

¶116

disposed of without interfering with the impugned orders.

¶117

10 -

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

NC: 2026:KHC:46342 W.P. No.2377/2023 C/W W.P. No.97/2024

¶120

CNR: KAHC010058592023

¶121

The FDP Court shall re-issue the proclamation and conduct

¶122

fresh sale in accordance with law.

¶123

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶124

No order as to costs.

¶125

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶126

JUDGE

¶127

BSR

¶128

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri R Krishnamurthy v. Smt Nanjamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Krishnamurthy v. Smt Nanjamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases