IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

R.S.A. No.832 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

SMT.R RADHIKA

W/O RAJAN

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

R/O.PUTTANINAGARA

KODAGU DISTRICT

MADIKERI – 571 201.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

B RAMU S/O.KEMPAIAH

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs.

1.

SMT.SARASWATHI

W/O LATE B RAMU

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

R/O. GANDHINAGAR

VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 236.

2.

SMT. VEENA

D/O LATE B RAMU

W/O SUBBA

R.O.RAMANTHAPURA

ARAKALGODU TALUK

3.

KUMARI GOWRI

2

D/O LATE RAMU

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

R/O. GANDHINAGAR

VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 236.

4.

SRINIVASA

S/O LATE RAMU

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

R/O. GANDHINAGAR

VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 236.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR

R-1 TO R-4 -THROUGH V.C.)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2012

PASSED IN R.A.No.26/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, MADIKERI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND

SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

30.03.2009 PASSED IN OS.No.8/2002 ON THE FILE OF

THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC.,

MADIKERI.

THIS RSA COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION

THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 11-12-2012 passed in R.A.No.26/2009,

by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madikeri, wherein

the appeal came to be allowed with costs of

Rs.10,000/- and the judgment and decree passed by

3

the trial Court in O.S.No.8/2008 dated 30.03.2009

was set aside and the counter claim of the defendant

was decreed with compensatory cost of Rs.1,000/-

and declaring the sale deed dated3-10-2001 as illegal

and granting permanent injunction.

2.

In

order

to

avoid

confusion

and

overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance

with their ranking and status as stood by them before

the trial Court.

3.

The plaintiff the suit against the defendant

before the trial Court in O.S.No.8/2002 for the relief of

permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his

men or agent or anybody claiming under him from

trespassing or interfering with the peaceful possession

and residence of the plaintiff over the suit schedule

property.

4

4.

The defendant appeared before the trial

Court and contested the matter and sought counter

claim for the relief of declaration to declare the sale

deed dated 03.10.2001 as illegal, void and not binding

on the defendant. He also sought permanent

injunction to restrain the plaintiff, her men or agent

and persons under her, from interfering with the

peaceful possession of the written statement schedule

property. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by

the trial court for default on 20-7-2006.

5. Thereafter, learned trial Judge continued the

case by recording evidence on behalf of both the

parties and after hearing the arguments, the learned

trial Judge dismissed the counter claim of the

defendant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of

dismissing

the

counter

claim,

the

defendants

preferred R.A.No.26/2009.

5

6. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that

suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.8/2002 was dismissed

for default on 20.07.2006. Proceedings continued in

respect of the counter claim which is for declaration

of title and permanent injunction against the plaintiff

and it came to be dismissed on 30.03.2009 which is

challenged in the regular appeal which came to be

allowed by the appellate court as stated above.

7. The contention of the defendant who filed

written statement to the suit filed by plaintiff and

making counter claim is that, he is the absolute owner

in possession of the house properties mentioned in the

written statement. He along