1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.475 OF 2015 (POS)

BETWEEN:

B.M.E. RAHAMUTHULLA KHAN,

S/O INAYATHULLA KHAN,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

R/O NO.12, PILLANNA GARDEN,

3^RD STAGE, P & T LAYOUT,

BANGALORE - 45.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI SHIVAREDDY K.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

M.G.KRISHNAJI RAO,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

2.

K.G.RAJA RAO,

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

3.

M.G.HUNNUJI RAO,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

3(a) SMT.SARASWATHI BAI,

W/O LATE HUNNUJI RAO,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

3(b) H.SHAMRAO,

S/O LATE HUNNUJI RAO,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

3(c)

H.SACHIN RAO,

S/O LATE HUNNUJI RAO,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

2

4.

M.G.CHANDROJI RAO,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

5.

M.G.NARAYANAJI RAO,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

SL.NO.1, 2, 4 & 5 ARE

SONS OF LATE M.H.GIRIMAJI RAO,

R/O KADUGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,

ARABIC COLLEGE P.O.

BANGALORE - 45.

6.

SMT.RAZIA BEGUM,

W/O LATE S.AMEER BASHA,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

7.

SRI RAFIQ AHMED,

S/O LATE S.AMEER BASHA,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

BOTH ARE R/AT

NO.385, MALAYALAM STREET,

VANAMBADI, TAMILNADU.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2;

R1, R3(a), R3(b), R3(c) & R4 ARE SERVED;

R5 TO R7 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT

VIDE ORDER DATED 17.02.2016)

---

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, CHALLENGING THE JUDGMENT AND

DECREE DATED 23.01.2015 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDITIONAL

CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN EX.CASE NO.1714/2013

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

THIS DAY, THIS COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from the Court of XIV Additional City

Civil Judge, Bengaluru in Execution Case No.1714/2013.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the

original suit proceedings in O.S.No.634/2004. The appellant

is the objector in the executing court.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3.

The events out of which the present dispute

between the appellant and respondents 1 to 5 may be

shortly stated as under:

The respondents 1 to 5 as plaintiffs filed suit for

recovery of possession and other reliefs against respondents

6 and 7 / defendants 1 and 2 on the file of XIV Additional

City Civil Judge at Bengaluru in O.S.No.634/2004.

Plaintiffs stated that they are the joint and absolute

owners of the land bearing survey number 69 measuring 1

acre 03 guntas in extent situated at Kadagondanahalli,

Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk having purchased the

4

said property under a registered sale deed dated 25.4.1962

from the sons and widow of one Tirupathur Manikam Chetty

Dharmalingam. The said Dharamlingam had purchased the

said property from one N.T.Shamanna under a registered

sale deed dated 31.03.1947. Dharamalingam died leaving

behind

his

widow-Sri.B.D.Subbammal

and

five

sons

Sri.B.D.Satyamurthy,

Sri.B.D.Damodaram,

Sri.B.D.Pattabhiramaiah,

Sri.B.D.Nagareetham

and

Sri.B.D.Radhakrishnan.

Prior to 1919, the schedule property had lost the

character of agriculture and it was being used for non-

agriculture purpose.

It

is

averred

that

the

erstwhile

owner

-

Sri.N.T.Shamanna prior to conveying the property in favor of

Dharamalingam had leased out northern portion of the

property measuring east to west 90 feet and north to south

60 feet forming northern part of survey number 69 of

Kadugondanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in

favor of one Abdul Rawoof @ Baya on 18.11.1918 under a

lease deed on a rent of Rs.60/- per year for a period of 15

years for the purpose of running a tannery business. Abdul

5

Rawoof @ Baya being a lessee under Sri.N.T.Shamanna