Sri B Balaguraiah v. Smt Narasamma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 944 OF 2017 (DEC) BETWEEN:

SRI B BALAGURAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O B GURUVAIAH R/A NO.22/10(OLD NO.37) NEAR L C R SCHOOL, FIRST D MAIN THIRD PHASE, GOKULA FIRST STAGE WARD NO.3, YESWANTHAPUR BANGALORE-560022. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M K VENKATRAMANA., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SMT NARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O LATE B GURAIAH R/A NO.603, FIRST E CROSS THIRD MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560054.

¶2SRI B G NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O B GURAIAH R/A NO.603, FIRST E CROSS THIRD MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560054.

3. SRI NAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

S/O B GURAIAH

R/A NO.603, FIRST E CROSS THIRD MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560054.

¶4SRI NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O B GURAIAH R/A NO.603, FIRST E CROSS THIRD MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560054. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 30.06.2023)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 03.04.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.5222/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-10) DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT

¶1Even though, the appeal was heard and admitted by this Court on 16.10.2019, the respondents having been served, remained unrepresented. Today, the matter is posted for consideration of I.A.No.1/2026 filed for amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.5222/2011.

¶2This regular first appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Section of CPC, 1908, challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated

03.04.2017 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in O.S.No.5222/2011, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

¶3The appellant herein, who is the plaintiff, had initially filed the suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.5222/2011. Later, the plaint was amended seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 03.04.2017. Therefore, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶4The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is inherited by the plaintiff through his father as per the Partition Deed dated 28.05.2005 (Ex.P1). Even though the Trial Court has held that Ex.P1 has been

proved, only for the reason that the plaintiff has not produced any title documents to prove that his father was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, has dismissed the suit.

¶5None appears for the respondent.

¶6After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the materials available on record, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from any perversity, illegality or arbitrariness and does it call for interference of this Court?"

¶7The specific case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is the joint family property at the hands of his father. Respondents-defendants are his family members. As per Ex.P-1, Partition Deed, the property has been divided amount the family members.

¶8The Trial Court has given a finding that the plaintiff has proved the Partition Deed, Ex.P-1, and the respondents have failed to prove the oral partition among the parties subsequent to Ex.P-1. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff's title cannot be declared only on the basis of Ex.P-1, unless the plaintiff has produced the original title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule properties so as to establish the mode of acquisition of right over the suit property by his ancestors.

¶9At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the title over the suit schedule property at the hands of his ancestors can be proved by producing necessary documents, if this Court grants one more opportunity to the plaintiff.

¶10In view of the above and in order to give one more opportunity, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be remitted back to the Trial Court to reconsider the

matter afresh, in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The point for consideration is answered accordingly.

¶11In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed. b) The judgment and decree dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.5222/2011, is aside. c) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2017. d) All the contentions of the parties are left open. e) The appellant-plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh application before the Trial Court seeking for amendment of the plaint, if required. If such an

application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to reconsider the same, in accordance with law. f) Parties are at liberty to produce necessary documents and adduce evidence, if any, to establish their case. g) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records, forthwith. In view of the above, the I.A.No.1/2026 does not survive for consideration.

(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54