Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 22434
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2362 OF 2008(DEC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. ANTHURIAH,
S/O. LATE. KARISIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
HINDU, AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT. KALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
URDIGERE HOBLI,
TUMKURU TALUK-572 101.
2.
SRI. SIDDARAJAIAH,
S/O. LATE. KARISIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HINDU, AGRICULTURIST
R/AT. KALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
URDIGERE HOBLI,
TUMKURU TALUK-572 101.
3.
SRI. REVANNA SIDDAIAH,
S/O LATE. KARISIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
HINDU, AGRICULTURIST
R/AT. KALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
URDIGERE HOBLI,
TUMKURU TALUK-572 101.
4.
SRI. G.N. LAKSHMINARASHMIAH,
S/O NARASIMIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
HINDU, AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT. NO.9, KHB COLONY,
1ST BLOCK, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
2
4(A) T.L. PREM,
S/O LATE G.N. LAKSMINARASHMIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
4(A)(I) SMT. SHYAMALA,
W/O LATE PREMKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
4(A)(II) YOGANANDA .T.P,
S/O LATE PREMKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
APPLICANT NO.4(A)(II) IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HIS N/G MOTHER,
SMT. SHYAMALA,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.9, 1ST BLOCK,
KHB COLONY, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.
(AMENDMENT CAUSE TITLE AS
PER THE COURT ORDER DTD:20.09.2016)
4(B) SMT. T.L. SHANTHA,
D/O LATE G.N. LAKSHMINARASHMIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R(C) SMT. T.L. YASHODA,
D/O LATE G.N. LAKSHMINARASHMIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
4(D) SMT. INDRANI,
D/O LATE G.N. LAKSHMINARASHMIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
ALL RESIDING AT: NO.9, 1ST BLOCK
KHB COLONY, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-11
(AMENDMENT CAUSE TITLE AS
PER THE COURT ORDER DTD:05.02.2010)
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH .H.V, ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
SRI. REVANNA @ REVAIAH,
S/O MARIYAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
1(A) REVAMMA,
W/O LATE REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
1(B) RAVI KUMAR @ KUMAR,
W/O LATE REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT. KALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
URDIGERE HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK-572 101.
(AMENDMENT CAUSE TITLE AS
PER THE COURT ORDER DTD:17.07.2012)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A&B))
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
&
DECREE
DTD:6.9.2008
PASSED
IN
R.A.NO.07/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT-I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DTD:16.11.2002, PASSED IN OS NO.781/1993 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC., TUMKUR.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 10.08.2023, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendants
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
challenging the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge,
(Jr.Dn.), Tumkur in O.S.No.781/1993 and confirmed by the
Presiding
Officer,
Fast
Track
Court-III,
Tumkur
in
R.A.No.7/2007.
For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred with original ranks occupied by them before the trial
Court.
The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as
under:
The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration that he is
the owner of the suit schedule property and FOR permanent
injunction against defendants. According to the plaintiff, the suit
schedule property is 1 acre 3 guntas out of 3 acres 6 guntas
situated in Sy.No.5/1A in Kesaramadu Village with specific
boundaries referred in the schedule. That the plaintiff is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and it is
the property of his family. That suit property was originally in
possession of the family of the plaintiff and after the death of his
5
father, he is in possession. It is asserted that the suit property
was earlier was part of Sy.No.5 and it was totally measuring 4
acres and 7 guntas and on 01.02.1958 Karesiddaiah and Revaiah
sons of Ananthuraiah gifted an extent of 2 acres and 3 guntas
out of the said land in favour of brother of the father of the
plaintiff. It is asserted that since, the date of the gift, father of
the plaintiff and his uncle were in possession of the gifted land
and they sold 1 acre 3 guntas out of the gifted land in favour of
one Jayanarasimhaiah and remaining land in Sy.No.5 was
partitioned between Revaiah and Karesiddiah together in respect
of 3 acres 6 guntas of land was given new Sy.No.5/1A. It is
asserted that the property was partitioned between the father of
the plaintiff and his uncle and suit property has fallen to the
share of the plaintiffs. He asserts that the defendant has no
right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. By taking
advantage of the fact that the defendants possess some small
portion in suit survey number colluding with each other trying to
evict the plaintiff from the suit property. The defendants have no
right, title or interest to sell the suit schedule property to
defendant No.6 and sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 5
in favour of defendant No.6 is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence,
plaintiff claims that he is compelled to file this suit. Initially, the
6
suit for bare injunction was filed, but subsequently, the plaint
was got amended by incorporating the relief of declaration.
After registration of the suit, the suit summons have
been issued to the defendants and defendants have appeared
through their counsel and filed their written statement denying
the allegations and assertions made in the plaint. It is denied
that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property
and it is asserted that the suit schedule property is the ancestral
property of defendants No.1 to 5 and they acquired the same as
legal heirs. It is asserted that defendants No.1 to 5 sold the suit
schedule property in favour of defendant No.6 and they were in
possession of the same till the sale and thereafter, defendant
No.6 is in possession and sale deed was executed on
24.08.1993. It is asserted that the defendant No.6 after
purchase submitted an application to revenue authorities to
enter his name, which was objected by the plaintiff and matter is
pending. It is asserted that the plaintiff is no way concerned with
th
