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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
SRI R.SRINIVASAIAH – Appellant
Versus
SRI BYRE GOWDA – Respondent
RFA 1754/2005



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.1754/2005 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

SRI R.SRINIVASAIAH

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

1(a) SMT. S.RADHA

W/O N.KARIYAPPA GOWDA

SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs.,

1(a-1) SRI N.KARIYAPPA GOWDA

S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA

HUSBAND OF LATE SMT.RADHA S

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

1(a-2) KUMARI K.SAHANA

D/O N.KARIYAPPA GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

1(a-3) K.M.SAGAR S/O N.KARIYAPPA GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT NO.1431

RADHA NILAYA, 12TH MAIN

24TH CROSS ROAD, 8B9 BLOCK

SAHAKARANAGARA

BENGALURU-560 092.

(AMENDED VIDE COUR ORDER DATED 11.09.2014)

& APPELLANTS

[BY SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE]

2

AND:

SRI BYRE GOWDA

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.02.2011)

1.

SRI B.RAMAKRISHNA

S/O LATE BYRE GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

R/O NO.410, 4TH 8B9 CORSS

O.M.B.R. LAYOUT, BANASAWADI

BENGALURU-560 043.

2.

SRI B.RAMACHANDRA

S/O LATE BYRE GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

R/O BYRE GOWDA FARM

2ND CROSS, THINDLU MAIN ROAD

VIRUPAKSHAPURA

BENGALURU-560 097.

3.

SMT.B.SOWBHAGYA

D/O LATE BYRE GOWDA

W/O SRI H.JAYARAMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

R/O NO.1-C, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA

CHIKKABOMMASANDRA

BENGALURU-560 065.

4.

SMT. B.SHANTHA

D/O LATE BYRE GOWDA

W/O SRI GOPAL RAJU

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

R/O NO.133, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT

4TH CROSS, RAJAMAHAL VILAS

BENGALURU-560 094

5.

SMT. B.SUJATHA

D/O LATE BYRE GOWDA

W/O SRI SHANTHA RAM

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

R/O NO.11, SITE NO.4/1

3

11TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM

BENGALURU-560 003.

6.

SRI B.RANGE GOWDA

S/O LATE BYRE GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

R/O NO.1810, 23RD CROSS

5TH MAIN ROAD, 8C9 BLOCK

SAHAKARA NAGAR

BENGALURU-560 092.

7.

MR.B.SRINIVASA GOWDA

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,

7(a) SMT. VARALAKSHMI

W/O LATE B. SRINIVASA GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

7(b) KUMARI BRUNDA

D/O LATE B.SRINIVASA GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

7(c) PRAJWAL

S/O LATE B.SRINIVASA GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

RESPONDENTS 7(a) TO 7(c)

ALL ARE R/AT NO.5, THIPPURU

RAMAIAH LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI

OPPOSITE TO TATA NAGAR,

BENGALURU-560 092.

... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a, c, d & e);

SRI G.B.SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1(b, f & g);

SMT.SHOBHA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7(a 3 c)]

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.10.2005 PASSED IN

O.S.NO.2678/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL

JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

4

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

JUDGMENT ON 28.09.2021, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED

THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree

passed in O.S.No.2678/1996 dated 17.10.2005 decreeing the

suit for the relief of declaration and injunction on the file of the V

Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

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 one Byregowda

had three sons namely, Venkategowda, Ramegowda and

Rangegowda. The plaintiff is the son of the second son of

Byregowda that is Ramegowda and the defendant is the son of

the third son of Byregowda that is Rangegowda. The joint family

owned 2 acres 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.164/5 in Kodigehalli

village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The total

extend of land in Sy.No.164 was 11 acres 4 guntas including

karab land of 11 guntas. In all, six persons owned the entire

extent in Sy.No.164 and in the revenue records, extent of the

5

land owned by each owner was being identified with respect to

their physical possession.

4.

The propositus Byregowda9s property was identified

at Sl.No.5 in the revenue record and therefore, an extent of 2

acres 3 guntas of land was identified as land in Sy.No.165/5

although Sy.No.164 was not sub-divided in such a manner. This

land was also being ca

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