Back
SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
SMT. D.R. SEETHAMMA – Respondent
RFA 1158/2003
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
R.F.A.NO.1158/2003 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI,
W/O AGADURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/A NO.329, 10TH MAIN,
2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 038.
2.
SRI PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
DOING GRILL WORK
IN SITE NO.29, 3RD CROSS,
NEAR RETSON BAR,
KATRIGUPPA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 085.
3.
SRI RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DOING GRILL WORK
IN SITE NO.29, 3RD CROSS,
NEAR RETSON BAR,
KATRIGUPPA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 085.
& APPELLANTS
[BY SRI KALYAN BASAVARAJ S., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.1;
SRI G.S. VISWESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3)
AND:
1.
SMT. D.R. SEETHAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI D.RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
2
2.
SRI D.R. SREENATH,
S/O LATE D.RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
3.
SRI D.R. SREEPATHY,
S/O LATE D.RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
4.
SRI D.R.SRIKANTH,
S/O LATE D.RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
5.
SRI D.R.PRABHAKAR,
S/O LATE D.RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
6.
SRI D.R.SREEVATHSA,
S/O LATE D. RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT NO.493/68, 16TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK,
BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 050.
7.
SMT.D.R.VATHSALA,
D/O LATE D.RAMA RAO,
W/O D.R.NAGARAJA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/A NO.9/3, WEST ANJANEYA
TEMPLE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
8.
SMT.D.R.NIRMALA,
D/O LATE D.RAMA RAO,
W/O B.N.ANANTHA RAGHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/A NO.493/68, 1ST FLOOR,
16TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK,
BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU-560 050.
9.
SRI N.VENKOBA RAO SINDHE (MURALI).
3
10. SRI N.NAGESH.
11. SRI N.JAGADEESH.
12. SRI SUDHAKAR.
13. SRI N.KRISHNAMURTHY.
14. KUMARI CHANDRI.
15. SRI N.SHANKAR.
RESPONDENTS 9 TO 15 ARE
CHILDREN OF LATE NARASINGA RAO S.
(DEFENDANT NO.1),
AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT NO.466, KUMARA KRUPA,
MAHATMA GANDHI CIRCLE
4TH NEHRU ROAD, GIRINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 085.
16. SMT. INDIRA,
W/O NARAYANA RAO,
AGE:MAJOR,
MILK VENDOR,
NO.60, GAVIPURAM BADAVANE,
GAVIPURAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 019.
& RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, FOR C/R-1 TO R-8 (THROUGH VC);
R-9 TO R-16 3 SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2004]
THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W
SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
23.06.2003 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1962/1985 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
(CCH NO.2), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.
THIS R.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 04.10.2021, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
4
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree
dated 23.06.2003 passed in O.S.No.1962/1985 on the file of the
I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
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 plaintiff
sought the relief of declaration to grant the judgment and decree
declaring that the possession of the suit schedule property by
defendant No.2 and the alleged subsequent sale, if any, of the
same in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1 is illegal,
unjustified and of no consequence in so far the plaintiff9s right of
ownership and possession of the suit schedule site is concerned
and to direct defendant Nos.1 and 2 to put the plaintiff in
possession of the suit schedule site as a consequential relief to
the main relief of declaration.
4.
The plaintiff in the suit contended that he had
purchased the plaint schedule site from defendant No.1 under a
registered
sale
deed
dated
14.12.1961
for
a
valuable
5
consideration of Rs.1,000/-. In pursuance of the sale deed,
defendant No.1 put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint
schedule
