Karnataka High Court
WP/27482/2026 of SRI. BORAIAH Vs SMT. RATHNAMMA on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010602892026 NC: 2026:KHC:49275 WP No. 27482 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 27482 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BORAIAH S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27482 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. BORAIAH
S/O DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
NO. U 25 NP BLOCK,
SWATHANTRA PALYA, S.R. PURAM,
BANGALORE NORTH,
SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE - 560021
2.
SRI.DODDAIAH
S/O DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
3.
SRI. PUTTAIAH
S/O DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
NO.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT
HOOTHAGERE VILLAGE
ATHAGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE BORAIAH C.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
SRI.PRATHAP. B.
S/O LATE BORAIAH C.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
No.1 & 2 ARE R/AT BELTHUR VILLAGE,
KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
3.
SMT. ROOPASREE.
W/O PRASANNA AND
D/O LATE BORAIAH C.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NILUVAGILU VILLAGE,
KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
4.
SMT.SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE KARIAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NAVILE VILLAGE,
ATHAGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
5.
SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O CHIKKANNA
D/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT SHANKARPURA VILLAGE,
KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ANNEXURE-A DATED 30.08.2025 IA NO.2 APPLICATION UNDER
ORDER 26 RULE 9 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND UNDER
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
RULE
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COURT COMMISSIONER AND DEMARCATE THE SUIT PROPERTY FILED BY THE R1 TO 3 IN THE FDP NO.20/2023 PENDING IN 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MADDUR.
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. Chokkareddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 30.08.2025 passed on I.A. No.2 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), appointing the Tahsildar as the Court Commissioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decree is in respect of only one item, whereas the FDP proceedings have been initiated in respect of three properties. It is further submitted that the decree was passed ex parte and that the appointment of the Court Commissioner is incorrect.
4. The suit in O.S. No.376/2012 was filed seeking partition. Under the judgment and decree, the trial Court held that the respondents are entitled to a one-third share in the
HC-KAR
suit schedule property. For execution of the said preliminary decree, final decree proceedings have been initiated. In order to ascertain and allot the one-third share in the larger extent of the suit schedule property, the trial Court appointed the Tahsildar as the Court Commissioner to identify and demarcate the property and submit a sketch.
5. When the one-third share is required to be allotted in the larger extent of the suit schedule property, the appointment of the Tahsildar as the Court Commissioner for demarcation of the properties is justified. Further, if the petitioners have any grievance, they are at liberty to file their objections to the report of the Court Commissioner.
6. In that view of the matter, no ground is made out to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24