SRI K G KRISHNA RAO vs SMT. K N RAMA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60977
WP No. 26871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010588632026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 26871 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K G KRISHNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K.V. GOPALA RAO,
RESIDING AT OLD NOS. 193 AND 176/1,
NEW NO.40 SUBBARAMA CHETTY ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE 560 004
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. K. N. RAMA,
W/O. LATE K.G. NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS
1(A) SRI. K N RAMESH
S/O. LATE. K.G. NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
1(B) SRI. K N SURESH
S/O LATE K G NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
1(C) SRI. K.N. SATISH,
S/O. LATE. K.G. NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT-59 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60977
WP No. 26871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010588632026
1(D) SRI. K.N. SRINIVAS,
S/O. LATE. K.G. NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
(1) & (1A, 1B & 1D) ARE
RESIDING AT NO.106,
BALAJI RESIDENCY, KSRTC LAYOUT,
CHIKKALLASANDRA,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU 560 061.
S/O. LATE. K.V. GOPALA RAO,
SINCE DECEASED,
REPRESENTED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
2. SMT. VEENA SRIKANTH,
W/O. SRI. B.R. SRIKANTH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 15/17,
SRINIKETANA, 5TH ACROSS
S.V. LAYOUT, III STAGE,
BANASHANKARI,
BANGALORE - 560 070
3.
3(A)
SMT. KAVERI INDIRA J. RAO,
D/O. LATE. K.V. GOPALA RAO
W/O. LATE. C.P. JAGANNATHA RAO,
SINCE DECEASED,
REPRESENTED BY HER
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
SMT. SHYLAJA J.,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
D/O. LATE C.P. JAGANNATHA RAO
AND LATE KAVERI @ INDIRA J. RAO
RESIDING AT 1163, SRIKRISHNA,
43RD CROSS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE 560 078
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60977
WP No. 26871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010588632026
3(B) SRI. RAGHUNATH J.,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE C.P. JAGANNATHA RAO
AND LATE KAVERI @ INDIRA J. RAO
RESIDING AT 568, 12TH CROSS,
JP NAGAR 2ND PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078
3(C) SRI. HARINATH J.,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. LATE C.P. JAGANNATHA RAO
AND LATE KAVERI @ IRIDIRA J. RAO
RESIDING AT NO. 1/5, ABHILASHA,
7TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY,
1ST STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 078,
3(D) SMT. MANGALA MADHUCHAND,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
D/O. LATE C.P. JAGANNATHA RAO AND
LATE KAVERI @ INDIRA J. RAO.
RESIDING AT 10/42, 'SHARNGA
16TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 070.
ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER
SRI. HARINATH J.,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O. LATE C.P. JAGANNATHA RAO AND
LATE KAVERI INDIRA J. RAO,
RESIDING AT NO. 1/5, ABHILASHA,
7TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY, 1 STAGE,
K.S. LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 078,
4.
SMT. SHYAMALA A. AMRUTHA,
SINCE DECEASED,
REPRESENTED BY HER
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
SRI. A.N. ANANTHASWAMY RAO,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60977
WP No. 26871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010588632026
5.
5(A)
AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS,
H/O. LATE SHYAMALA @ A. AMRUTHA
SRI. ANANDA RAO,
S/O. SRI. A.N. ANANTHASWAMY RAO
SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY
HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
SMT. CHITRA S.R.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O. LATE. A. ANANDA RAO,
5(B) KUM. DHANYA A.
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
D/O. LATE. A. ANANDA RAO,
5(C) SMT. SUNANDA A.
D/O SRI A N ANANTHASWAMY RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.10/25, 3RD 'C' CROSS,
W/O. SRI. GUNDURAO H.K,
KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
VIVEKANANDANAGAR,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085.
5(D) SRI. ARVINDA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O. SRI. A.N. ANANTHASWAMY RAO
5A,B,D ARE RESIDING AT NO 8/21,
ANANTHASANA, 4TH B CROSS,
KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
VIVEKANANDANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560085.
6.
SRI. A. RAMA RAO,
SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY
HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60977
WP No. 26871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010588632026
6(A) SMT. SUDHAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYACHAR,
C/O. KRUTHI H, 'SARYAMOOLA' NO.127,
MTS LAYOUT, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 601
6(B) SRI. R. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O. SRI. A. RAMA RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.67/1,
'KHADRISHA NIL IN OSAYA',
5TH CROSS, GURUDATTA LAYOUT,
HOSAKEREHALLI, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE 560 085.
7. SRI. K.G. MADHAVA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. K.V. GOPALA RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.10/B, B MAIN,
ITI LAYOUT, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 085.
8.
SMT. NARMADA,
D/O. LATE. K.V. GOPALA RAO,
SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY
HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
SRI. M.G.SHAMSUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O. LATE M.K. GOPINATH AND
LATE NARMADA
RESIDING AT NO. T-127/10,
16TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 04
9.
SRI.SETHU MADHAVA RAO,
SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY
HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60977
WP No. 26871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010588632026
9(A)
SMT. SURMA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
D/O. LATE A. SETHU MADHAVA RAO,
RESIDING AT NO. F-1, VARAHA RESIDENCY
1ST CROSS, GARUDATTA LAYOUT,
HOSAKEREHALLI, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085.
9(B) SRI. RAM PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O. LATE A. SETHU MADHAVA RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.202,
PRUTHVI CLASSIC APARTMENTS,
19TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN,
SMS LAYOUT, 5TH PHASE,
J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078.
10. SMT. K.G. VASANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
D/O. LATE K.V. GOPALA RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.46, 4TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN 3RD BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 028.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1(A) AND R3(C))
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 08.07.2026 IN FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS
NO.147/23 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE VIDE ANNEXURE - D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60977
WP No. 26871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010588632026
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed impugning the order
dated 08.07.2026 passed in FDP No. 147/2023, whereby
the Trial Court directed the sale of the suit schedule
property based on the report of the Court Commissioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is residing in a portion of the suit schedule
property and that, if the entire property is sold based on
the report of the Court Commissioner, the petitioner may
be rendered without any accommodation. It is further
submitted that the public auction could be conducted by
excluding the portion of the property in the petitioner's
occupation. Despite the objection raised in this regard, the
Trial Court erred in directing the sale of the entire suit
schedule property by public auction.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
caveator/respondent Nos. 1(A) and 3(c) submits that the
Court Commissioner was appointed to examine the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60977
WP No. 26871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010588632026
feasibility of dividing the suit schedule property in terms of
the preliminary decree. It is submitted that, as the suit
schedule property cannot be divided by metes and bounds
into ten equal shares, the Trial Court, based on the
Commissioner's report, ordered the sale of the property by
public auction. It is further submitted that the portion
claimed to be in the petitioner's occupation cannot be
excluded from the sale while the remaining portion of the
suit schedule property is sold. Learned counsel submits
that the Trial Court was justified in ordering the sale of the
entire suit schedule property by public auction, having
regard to the factual report submitted by the Court
Commissioner.
4. Considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
on record.
5. The suit is for partition. The FDP No.147/2023
was instituted to effectuate the shares declared in the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60977
WP No. 26871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010588632026
preliminary decree. In the said proceedings, the Trial
Court, with a view to drawing up the final decree by
demarcating the shares as decreed, appointed a Court
Commissioner.
6. The Court Commissioner reported that the suit
schedule property could not be divided into ten shares. It
was further reported that any attempt to divide the
property into ten shares would result in a reduction in the
usable extent of each share, as a substantial portion of the
property would have to be reserved for providing access.
The Commissioner also opined that division of the property
into ten shares was not feasible in the interests of the
parties.
7. The difficulty in dividing the suit schedule
property into ten equal shares is not in dispute. The
contention that the portion of the property in the
petitioner's occupation ought to be excluded from the sale
cannot be sustained in the absence of any report
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60977
WP No. 26871 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010588632026
supporting such exclusion. Further, exclusion of any
portion of the property from the auction ought not to
result in depriving the other parties to the partition decree
of the consideration or rights to which they are otherwise
entitled.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds no error
or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9