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

M MOHAN CHRISTOPHER – Appellant
Versus
SHRI G MARAPPA – Respondent
RFA 1467/2014



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1467 OF 2014 (DEC)

BETWEEN

1.

M.MOHAN CHRISTOPHER

S/O LATE B.MUNIKAMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

2.

ANUSUYA

W/O M.MOHAN CHRISTOPHER,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.58,

1ST MAIN, BRINDAVAN LAYOUT,

KAVALBYRASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 032.

NOW AT NO.9/1, OLD NO.50,

SY.NO.71/3 & 71/4,

1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS,

BRINDAVAN LAYOUT,

KAVAL BYRASANDRA,

R.T.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032.

&APPELLANTS

(BY SRI VISHNU HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND

1

SHRI. G.MARAPPA

S/O LATE GURAPPA,

2

SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS.

1(a). SMT.LAKSHMAMMA,

W/O G.MARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

1(b). SHRI. PRAKASH,

S/O G.PARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

1(c). AMULU @ AMMU,

D/O G.MARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT NO.62/1,

GURAPPA COMPOUND,

NEAR SRIGANDHA HOTEL,

KAVAL BYRASANDRA,

BANGALORE - 560 032.

2.

M.PRAKASH,

S/O G.MARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

R/AT NO.62/1,

GURAPPA COMPOUND,

NEAR SRIGANDHA HOTEL,

KAVAL BYRASANDRA,

BANGALORE - 560 032.

3.

G.RAGHU CHAUHAN

S/O B.S.MAHADEVA RAO,

AGED 40 YEARS,

R/O NO.1971, 8TH MAIN,

RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE,

8TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR,

2ND STAGE, N.BLOCK,

BANGALORE - 10.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

3

SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

R1(a) TO R1(c) AND R2 ARE SERVED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908.

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri.Vishnu Hegde learned counsel for appellants has

appeared in person.

Sri.K.N.Phanindra learned Senior counsel on behalf of

Smt.Vaishali Hegde for respondent No.3 has appeared through

video conferencing.

2.

This is an appeal from the Court of XLIII Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

4.

The facts of the case are simply stated as under:-

The

property

bearing

Sy.Nos.71/3

and

71/4

of

Kavalbyrasandra, Bangalore North Taluk, originally belonged to

4

one Muni Akkayamma and others. They sold the property in

favor of one Sri.Thamodaran, S/o Murugesh under a registered

sale deed dated 29.01.1975. The said Thamodaran got converted

the land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose as

per the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore

District, Bangalore vide O.M.No.DIS ALNSR 236/78-79 dated

19.05.1979. After getting the land converted, Thamodaran

formed layout in the said land and sold the plots in favour of

needy persons. Site bearing Nos.49 and 50 were sold in favor of

one-Smt.Usha Rajagopal W/o.G.R.Rajagopal under a registered

Sale Deed dated 12.08.1983 and she constructed a small shed

and khata was also made out in her name. Smt.Usha Rajagopal

sold two sites in favour of one Smt.N.Hemalatha W/o.Natarajan

under a registered sale deed dated 24.10.1994. After the

purchase, N.Hemalatha paid tax to Kavalbyrasandra Panchayath.

The

land

was

incorporated

within

the

jurisdiction

of

Devarajeevanahalli notified area committee.

After some time, the land was incorporated within the

jurisdiction of Bangalore Mahanagar Palike. Bangalore City

5

Corporation on 11.11.1997 issued escaped assessment notice to

N.Hemalatha. The khata was changed in the name of

N.Hemalatha. Two sites purchased by N.Hemalatha were

amalgamated into one unit and has been assigned as property

No.9, Ward No.95, Brindavan Layout, Kavalabyrasandra, 1st Main

Road.

It is said that N.Hemalatha sold site bearing No.50

(Schedule-A) measuring East to West 40 feet, North to South 30

feet under a registered sale deed dated 14.02.2005 in favor of

plaintiffs 1 and 2. After the purchase, they obtained a

sanctioned plan and license and constructed a building. They

have let out the same to tenants. N.

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