The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a review petition filed by defendants in a partition suit, while taking stern exception to the “browbeating” and “disrespectful” conduct of the petitioners’ counsel. The Court upheld its earlier order to reserve a 1/4th share in suit properties for the plaintiffs and a co-defendant, observing that relying solely on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property (TP) Act would leave vulnerable parties with nothing but a “paper tiger” decree.
The order was passed by Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar in Review Petition No. 587 of 2025. The Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioners and dedicated a significant portion of the judgment to criticizing the manner in which the arguments were canvassed.
Background of the Case
The dispute involves the family of late Muniyappa, who had four children: Govinda Reddy (Plaintiff), Channamma (Defendant No. 25), Krishnappa, and Channaraya Reddy. The review petitioners are the sons of Krishnappa and Channaraya Reddy.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming that suit item Nos. 8 and 9 were joint family properties. In 2025, the High Court, in an appeal (MFA No. 7416/2025), modified a trial court order to direct the defendants to reserve a 1/4th share in all suit schedule properties for the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 25. The defendants were permitted to utilize the remaining shares but were required to furnish details of apartments constructed on the land.
The petitioners sought a review of this direction, arguing that the Court should have only observed that alienations are subject to Section 52 of the TP Act rather than directing a specific reservation of shares.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Arun B.M., contended that:
- The plaintiffs suppressed the fact that Defendant No. 25 (Channamma) had previously filed a similar suit (O.S.No.2085/2021) and failed to get an injunction.
- The suit was barred by limitation as it challenged a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) from 2013 after a delay of 12 years.
- The Court failed to consider the conduct of the parties as per the Supreme Court judgment in Mandali Ranganna vs. T. Ramachandra.
- The direction to reserve shares was contrary to the principle that Section 52 of the TP Act provides sufficient protection.
The respondents (plaintiffs) argued that the cause of action for partition is recurring and that the previous suit was withdrawn with liberty to agitate rights in the present suit. They highlighted that Govinda Reddy (deaf and dumb) and Channamma (an elderly woman) were being systematically excluded from their legitimate shares.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar rejected the petitioners’ arguments, noting that the review petitioners had systematically excluded their sister (Channamma) and physically disabled brother (Govinda Reddy) from multiple development agreements executed in 2007, 2011, and 2013.
On Section 52 of the TP Act: The Court held that while Section 52 applies, it is often insufficient in large-scale real estate projects. The judgment states:
“The protection under Section 52 of the T.P. Act is weak protection… if all the flats and apartments are sold out even if decree is passed by granting share but for realising the fruits is only nightmares for the decree holders.”
The Court emphasized that without reserving shares, the plaintiffs would be forced into “cumbersome legal proceedings against every purchaser… who are hundred in numbers,” rendering the final decree a “paper tiger or cinema tiger.”
On Conduct and Suppression: The Court found no misconduct in the withdrawal of the earlier suit by Channamma, noting her vulnerability as an elderly woman. Conversely, the Court remarked on the petitioners’ conduct:
“Systematically excluded Govinda Reddy and Channamma in respect of properties item Nos. 8 and 9… If this is not misconduct, then no other things would be misconduct.”
Stern Rebuke of Advocacy Conduct
In a significant section titled “ON ADVOCACY,” the Court addressed the conduct of Sri B.M. Arun. The Court noted that the advocate argued in a tone that was “virtually threatening the Court” and “shouting to the Court derogative to the dignity and decorum.”
The judgment observed:
“Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to ‘terrorize’ or ‘intimidate’ Judges with a view to ‘secure’ orders which they want… No lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the court or malign the presiding officer with a view to get a favourable order.”
The Court further noted:
“The way in which Sri.B.M.Arun, Advocate has argued is nothing but shouting to the Court derogative to the dignity and decorum of the Court, which is witnessed by the Officials of the Court as well as Advocates, who were present in the Court Hall at Dharwad Bench.”
While the Court considered requesting the Bar Council to take disciplinary action, it “restrained itself” from taking that excessive step, citing its “highest regard to Advocates.”
The Decision
The High Court dismissed the review petition as “misconceived, frivolous and vexatious,” confirming the order to reserve the 1/4th share for the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 25. The Court concluded that “dispensation of justice must be real and practical but shall not be a mere paper decree.”
The petitioners were ordered to pay a cost of ₹25,000.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shri K. Ganesh & Anr. vs. Shri Govind Reddy & Ors.
- Case No.: Review Petition No. 587 of 2025 (in MFA No. 7416/2025)
- Bench: Justice Hanchate Sanjeevekumar
- Date of Order: March 3, 2026
