SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SRI. RAVINDRANATH MANE – Appellant
Versus
SMT. MEERA SATYANANDA NIKAM – Respondent
RFA 666/2016



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.666 OF 2016 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAVINDRANATH MANE

S/O LATE J.ATHMARAM MANE,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs.

1.

SMT.DEVIKA BAI

W/O LATE RAVINDRANATH MANE,

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

2.

SRI ROOPESH MANE

S/O LATE RAVINDRANATH MANE,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

3.

SRI SHREYAS MANE

S/O LATE RAVINDRANATH MANE,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT NO.36,

ANJANEYA TEMPLE 1ST STREET,

SHESHADRIPURAM,

BANGALORE - 560 020.

… APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.AMARESH A. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SMT.MEERA SATYANANDA NIKAM

W/O SRI SATYANANDA NIKAM,

D/O LATE J.ATHMARAM MANE

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

NO.131, 3RD MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,

R

2

3RD STAGE, BASAVESWARA NAGAR,

BANGALORE - 560 079.

MR.BABU LAXIMINARAYANA RAO MANE

S/O LATE J.ATHMARAM MANE

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRs.

2.

MRS.SHANTHA RAO

W/O LATE BABU LAXMINARAYANA RAO MANE,

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

3.

MR.PRASHANTH MANE

S/O LATE BABU LAXMINARAYANA RAO MANE,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

4.

MR.VIJAY MANE

S/O LATE BABU LAXMINARAYANA RAO MANE,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

5.

MRS.POONAM ASHWATHNARAYANA

D/O LATE BABU LAXMINARAYANA RAO MANE,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

All ARE R/AT NO.73,

7TH MAIN, 1ST 'C' CROSS, 2ND PHASE

4TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE

BANGALORE - 560 085

MR.BABU VISHWANATHA MANE

SINCE DECEASED BY LRs.

6.

SMT.SHYAMALA BAI

W/O LATE VISHWANATH MANE,

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

7.

GYANESHWARA KIRAN MANE

S/O LATE VISHWANATH MANE,

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

8.

PRAVEEN MANE

S/O LATE VISHWANATH MANE,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

3

ALL ARE R/AT NO.441,

3RD CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,

BEML LAYOUT, R.R.NAGAR,

BANGALORE - 560 098.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE

FOR SRI.K.S.KALLESHAPPA, ADVOCATE - R1,

SRI.P.N.HEGDE, ADVOCATE - R2 TO 8)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, SITTING AT

DHARWAD, THIS COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri.Amaresh A. Angadi learned counsel for appellants

and Sri.P.N.Hegde learned counsel for respondents 2 to 8

have appeared in person and Sri.M.R.Rajagopal learned

counsel on behalf of Sri.K.S.Kalleshappa for respondent

No.1 has appeared through video conferencing.

This is an appeal from the Court of I Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

4

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3.

The facts of the case are simply stated as

under:-

The original Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendant are

the children of one J.Athmaram Mane and Smt.Gopika Bai.

It is stated that the brothers of Smt.Gopika Bai

executed a Registered Gift Deed in respect of the house

property bearing Door No.36, Anjaneya Temple, First

Street, Sheshadripuram Link Road, Bangalore – 560020,

measuring East to West 30 feet North to South 47 feet

with approximately measuring seven squares building on

24.12.1945. Smt.Gopika Bai died on 27.08.1992 giving

instructions to her husband J.Athmaram Mane that the

gifted property should go to her daughter Smt.Meera

Satyanand Nikam - the third plaintiff.

It is stated that J.Athmaram Mane, had fixed deposit

of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) (Receipt

5

No.119/74 dated:23.03.1999) and Saving Bank Account

(old No.6/1732) New No.18SB1732 in the State Bank of

Mysore, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore. The father

J.Athmaram Mane died on 14.05.1999. After his death, as

per the instructions of the father, the original first and the

second plaintiffs relinquished their rights in respect of the

gifted property (item No.1 of the suit schedule property) in

favor of the third plaintiff by executing a Registered

Release deeds on 31.08.1999. The defendant has not

executed any Release Deed in respect of item No.1 of suit

sc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top