Sri. Dayanandaswamy, v. Praveen Kumar T.S

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:38782( WP(No.(22724(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010497442026( ( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(27 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(SMT.(JUSTICE(LALITHA(KANNEGANTI(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(22724(OF(2026((GM-CPC)(

BETWEEN:((

1., SRI.,DAYANANDASWAMY, AGED,ABOUT,61,YEARS, S/O,LATE,B.BASAPPA,

NO.7,,MALLIKARJUNASWAMY,, TEMPLE,ROAD,,FORT,,TIPTUR-572,201., ,

2., SRI.B.BASAVALINGA,MURTHY, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS, S/O,LATE,B.BASAPPA,

NDNO.5-B-201,,2 ,,FLOOR, ANANDA,VIHAR,APARTMENTS, TALI,CHOWKI,,HYDERABAD-8,

ANDHARA,PRADESH., …PETITIONERS, Digitally signedtiby (BY,SRI.,S,RAJESH,,ADVOCATE,FOR, SUVARNA0T SRI.S,B,MUKKANNAPPA.,,ADVOCATE),Location: HIGH COURT0OF AND:( KARNATAKA

1., PRAVEEN,KUMAR,T.S, AGED,ABOUT,57,YEARS, R/AT,THIMLAPURA,VILLAGE, BILIGERE,POST,,TIPTUR,TALUK, TUMKUR,DISTRICT-572,101., ,

2., SMT.B.BHAVANIDEVI, AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS, W/O,GANGADHARA, 9TH,B,CROSS,,BEHIND,NEHRU,SCHOOL, GANGOTHRI,NAGAR, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:38782( WP(No.(22724(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010497442026( ( ( R/O,GANESHA,NILAYA,,S.I.T.EXTESION, TUMKUR-572,101., ,

3., SMT.SHYAMALADEVI, AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS, W/O,C.C.MANJUNATHA, R/O,PALLAGHATTI,HOUSE, KANNIKA,PARAMESHWARI,TEMPLE,ROAD, BEHIND,SIDDI,MEDICALS, TIPTUR-572,201., ,

4., SMT.B.ANNAPURNA, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS, W/O,VISHWANATHA, R/,AT,NO.19,,I,MAIN,,II,STAGE, WEST,OF,CHORD,ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE-560,086., ,

5., SRI.,YOGESHWARASWAMY, AGED,ABOUT,57,YEARS, S/O,LATE,B.BASAPPA, RESIDING,AT,NO.7, MALLIKARJUNASWAMY,TEMPLE,ROAD, FORT,,TIPTUR-572,201., …RESPONDENTS, , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED, 2.5.2026, PASSED, BY, THE, SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, J.M.F.C, AT, TIPTUR,, ON, I.A.NO.4/2024, IN, F.D.P.NO.4/2021, AT, ANNEXURE-H, TO, THE, WRIT, PETITION,, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS, THE, APPLICATION, NO.4/2024, FILED,BY,THE,RESPONDENTS,1,TO,4,,UNDER,THE,FACTS,AND, CIRCUMSTANCES,OF,THE,CASE,AND,ETC., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,SMT.,JUSTICE,LALITHA,KANNEGANTI, ,

ORAL ORDER

¶1Aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, on I.A.No.4 filed under Section 151 of CPC in FDP No.4/2021, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶2It is submitted that the Trial Court has passed the impugned order on the basis of an application filed by the other co-sharers seeking to sell Item No.11 of the suit schedule property and to distribute the sale consideration among the parties in the interest of justice.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has sentiments, as it is an ancestral property, and the Trial Court ought not to have passed an order directing the property to be auctioned in a public auction. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, has allowed the application filed by the other co-sharers. While passing the impugned order, the Trial Court has observed that the property at item No.11 has irregular measurements and is very small, which cannot be distributed by demarcating and allotting shares to the petitioners and respondents. Therefore, it is just and fair to put

the suit item No. 11 property for sale and to distribute the sale consideration amount to the petitioners and respondents to provide equitable relief as per the preliminary decree under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1983. Though the respondents have contended that the petitioners have not filed this application under a specific provision of law, the petitioners' application cannot be dismissed merely because it is not filed under a specific provision of law. The Court Commissioner has demarcated the suit item No.11 property, and the measurements of the suit item No.11 property show that it has abnormal measurements which cannot be divided into 7 equal parts. Therefore, it is not possible to allot the shares in the suit property, and it is just and fair to pass an order for sale of the item No.11 property. Hence, the application is allowed, and the Trial Court has ordered the sale of the petition schedule item No.11 property, instead of division as per Section 2 of the Partition Act. However, if any of the petitioners or respondents wishes to purchase the petition schedule item No.11 property, he or she can purchase it in accordance with the provisions of the Partition Act. If the shares, i.e., the petitioners and

respondents, are not willing to purchase, in such an event, it will be put to public auction, and thereafter, the sale proceeds shall be distributed among the petitioners and respondents.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not acceptable for the petitioners to sell the property at a public auction. The Trial Court, without considering the price and other aspects, has put the property for auction.

¶5This Court has asked the learned counsel for the petitioners if the petitioners are ready to purchase the property and even the Trial Court has left provision for the same. He has submitted that the petitioners do not have enough resources to purchase the property.

¶6Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the material on record. The Trial Court has passed the impugned order under Section 2 of the Partition Act, holding that the suit item No. 11 property is not divisible, and has also given an option to any of the petitioners or respondents to purchase the said property. In these circumstances, this Court

do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending I.As if any, in the petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42