Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
UMESH M.ADIGA
Radha W/o Late Gundappa Sastry – Appellant
Versus
D. Ramamurthy S/o Doraswamy Naidu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiff's claims and the defendants' responses. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. determination of issues by the trial court. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. findings of the first appellate court on appeal. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. questions of law framed by the high court. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. court's analysis of the previous decree and its implications. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. jurisdictional issues under sarfaesi act. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. court's reasoning on dismissing the appeal. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 9. final order dismissing the appeal. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
UMESH M. ADIGA, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19th October 2011, passed in R.A.No.37/2011, on the file of II Addl. District Judge and In-charge Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, (for short, `first Appellate Court'), which arose from the judgment and decree dated 2nd November 2010, passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, (for short, `trial Court'), in O.S.No.381/2000.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over matters related to secured debts under the SARFAESI Act; aggrieved parties must approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction in matters under the SARFAESI Act, as grievances must be addressed to the DRT, per Section 34.
Application against measures to recover secured debts – Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of Civil Court is not ousted. However, Civil Courts have to be extremely cautious while granting any interim order ....
Sales executed after taking possession under the SARFAESI Act are void, affirming the authority of civil courts in possession disputes involving third parties.
Court held that transactions made during the subsistence of a mortgage are void under the SARFAESI Act; the auction purchaser's rights were upheld despite challenges to the validity of earlier transf....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
