##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1702 OF 2010 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. R N TARA D/O LATE R.L. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.51/1, OLD NO.20/1A, SONAR STREET

CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE – 570 010.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. H. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. S RAJAMMAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, D/O SUBRAMANYA IYER,

W.P LATE NATESHWARA IYER, Dig itally SINCE DECEASED SURVICED BY signed by RESPONDENT NO.3

CHANDANA B M

2. SMT. M. S. KAVERAMMA Location:

High Court AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, of Karnataka D/O LATE SUBRAMANYA IYER, SINCE DECEASED SURVIVED BY

RESPONDENT NO.3.

RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 R/AT NO.177, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 010.

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010

HC-KAR

3. SMT SHARADA RAMAN D/O LATE SUBRAMANYA IYER

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, 2^ND STREET, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,

KAMATIPURA, VELAVANAKAR KOIL CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU.

…RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 04.01.2019, APPEAL AGAINST R1 STANDS ABATED;

VIDE ORDER DATED 16.03.2020 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT IN RESPECT OF R3 BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION;

VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS ABATED;

VIDE ORDER DATED 19.08.2021 R3 IS TREATED AS LR OF DECEASED R1 & R2;)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.03.2010, PASSED IN R.A.NO.100/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.07.2007 PASSED IN OS.118/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.), MYSORE. TRAIL COURT DECREED THE SUITAPPELLATE COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND

POSSESSION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by the appellant in R.A.No.100/2007 on the file

of II Additional District Judge, Mysuru dated 18.03.2010, whereby the said appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed by the appellate Court by modifying the judgment and decree passed by

the Trial Court.

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010

HC-KAR

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused

the material on record. Appeal against respondent Nos.1 and 2 are abated. Notice to respondent No.3 is held sufficient vide order

dated 16.03.2020.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the

respondents-plaintiffs has instituted aforesaid suit against the appellants - defendants for declaration, acquisition, recovery of possession, mesne profits etc., in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the appellant-defendant, came to be decreed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs against the appellant-defendant, thereby declaring the respondents- plaintiffs to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directing the appellant-defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the respondents - plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal in R.A.No.100/2007 before the First Appellate Court, in which, the appellant filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to produce additional evidence. The said application as well as the main appeal having been opposed by the

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010

HC-KAR

respondents-plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by declaring the respondents- plaintiffs to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directing the appellant-defendant to hand over possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent by paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant and also the total tax paid f