1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

R.F.A.NO.598/2005 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1.

G. KOTRAGOWDA,

S/O BASALINGAPPA GOWDA.

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED

BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

1(a) GIRIJAMMA,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

W/O LATE KOTRAGOWDA.

1(b) BASAVANAGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

S/O LATE KOTRAGOWDA.

1(c) CHANDRASHEKAR,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

S/O LATE KOTRAGOWDA.

1(d) RAJASHEKAR,

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

S/O LATE KOTRAGOWDA.

1(e) NAVEEN KUMAR,

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

S/O LATE KOTRAGOWDA.

1(f)

UMESH,

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

S/O LATE KOTRAGOWDA.

1(g) HALAMMA,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

2

W/O BASAVANAGOWDA KALLANAGOWDA,

D/O LATE KOTRAGOWDA.

2.

RUDRAMMA,

W/O LATE VEERANAGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

3.

BASAVALINGAPPAGOWDA,

S/O LATE VEERANAGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

4.

MAHESHWARAPPA,

S/O LATE VEERANAGOWDA,

AAGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

5.

PRAKASH.

S/O LATE VEERANAGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GUTTUR VILLAGE,

HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

6.

VEERAMMA,

W/O MALLIGI KOTRESH,

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

BENDIGERE VILLAGE,

HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

& APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE;

APPEAL AGAINST DECEASED A-1(A)

IS DISMISSED AS ABATED

VIDE ORDER DATED 20.11.2019)

AND:

A.D. PAKEERAPPA,

S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

AGRICULTURIST & BUSINESSMAN,

GUTTUR VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK,

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

3

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH

ORDER XLVI OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

02.03.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.27/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL

JUDGE, (SR. DN.), HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR

DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS R.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 31.07.2021 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED

THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree

dated 02.03.2005 passed in O.S.No.27/2002 on the file of the

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Harihara, dismissing the suit for

declaration and permanent injunction.

2.

The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Trial Court to avoid the confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiffs

had filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent

injunction contending that they are the agriculturists and

permanent resident of Guttur Village. The defendant is also an

agriculturist as well as businessman and permanently residing at

Guttur Village. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one

Pakeeragowda was the propositus of their family and he owned

immovable

properties.

He

had

three

sons

by

name

4

Shivarudrappa, Basavanagowda and Basalingappagowda. The

said propositus was enjoying all the family properties along with

his sons. After the death of Pakeeragowda, his sons continued

in the joint family by enjoying their family properties.

Shivarudrappa, being the eldest male member was managing

the family affairs including the family properties. During that

time, the said Shivarudrappa purchased the land bearing

Sy.No.21/3 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas from one Nagappa

Gouli. He himself and his brothers enjoyed the said property

under the joint family. Thereafter, all the brothers of

Shivarudrappa had partitioned the family properties under oral

partition and they started to enjoy their shares independently.

Shivarudrappa died leaving behind his three sons by name

Veeranagowda, Basavanagowda and Patreppagowda. The

second son by name Basavanagowda also died leaving behind

his

four

sons

by

name

Chikkaveerappa,

Rudragowda,

Jayannagowda and Shivamurthygowda. Another third son of

Pakeeragowda by name Basalingappagowda also died leaving

behind his four sons by name Kotragowda i.e., plaintiff No.1,

Vee