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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - KALABURAGI BEN
MAHANTAPPA S/O GURALINGAPPA HAVANNAVAR AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
SHIVUBAI W/O SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND AND ORS – Respondent
RSA 200026 2016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

R.S.A. NO.200026/2016 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

1.

MAHANTAPPA,

S/O. GURALINGAPPA HAVANNAVAR,

SINCE DECEASED BY LRs,

1(a) PRABAVATI

W/O. MALLU MANAGOND,

AGED : 48 YEARS,

OCC : HH HOUSE,

R/O. C/O. M.K. MANAGOND,

GANDI NAGAR LAST,

BUS STAND HUBBALI

1(b) RAJESHWARI,

W/O. BASAVARAJ PATIL,

AGED 45 YEARS,

OCC : HH WORK,

R/O. C/O. B.N. PATIL,

PATIL CONSTRUCTION ABLI,

KOAT APARTMENT K.O.,

KASTAPETE PUNE

1(c) IRANNA MAHANTAPPA HAVANNAR,

AGED : 50 YEARS,

2

R/O.VIRANNA, C/O. P.V. CONSTRUCTIONS,

370: A/B. SOMAWAR PATE,

NARA PESHNA CHOUK PUNE,

MAHARASTRA

1(d) KASHIBAI,

W/O. MAHANTAPPA HAVANNAR,

AGED : 68 YEARS,

OCC : H.H. WORK,

R/O. VIRANNA, C/O. P.V. CONSTRUCTION,

370 : A/B. SOMWARPETE

LRs OF NARAPESHNA CHOUK,

PUNE (MAHARASHTRA)

…

APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. G.G.CHAGASHETTI, ADV. &

SRI.I.R. BIRADAR, ADV.)

AND :

1.

SHIVUBAI,

W/O. SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND,

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs

1(a) ASHOK,

S/O. SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND,

AGED : 56 YEARS,

OCC : KSRTC CONDUCTOR,

R/O. KSRTC DEPOT,

GADAG 582 101

1(b) SHRISHAIL,

S/O. SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND,

AGED : 54 YEAS,

OCC : AGRICULTURE,

R/O. UTNAL,

TQ. B. BAGEWADI,

DIST. VIJAYAPUR - 586 101

3

1(c) INDRABAI

W/O. SHANTESH MELASHANKAR,

AGED : 51 YEARS

OCC : HH WORK,

R/O. BABLESHWAR,

TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPUR - 586 101

1(d) VEERESH,

S/O. SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND,

AGED : 48 YEARS,

OCC : PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHER,

R/O. ADARSH NAGAR,

NEAR SHANTINIKETAN SCHOOL,

VIJAYAPUR - 586 101

1(e) SHRIKANT,

S/O. SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND,

AGED : 45 YEARS,

OCC : PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHER,

R/O. RAM NAGAR,

BACK SIDE PEROOR GUNDERAO COLLEGE,

VIJAYA PUR - 586 101

1(f) SHANESH,

S/O. SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND,

AGED : 42 YEARS,

OCC : BUSINESS,

R/O. BACK SIDE,

NCC OFFICE, SOLAPUR ROAD,

VIJAYA PUR - 586 101

2.

SANGAPPA,

S/O. GURALINGAPPA HAVANNAVAR,

AGED : 59 YEARS,

OCC : BUSINESS,

4

R/O. S.V. INDUSTRIES,

B-32 AND B-34,

1st STAGE, PEENYA INDL. ESTATE,

BANGALORE - 560 004

3.

SHANTABAI,

W/O. REVAPPA AWANI,

AGED : 58 YEARS,

OCC : H.H. WORK,

R/O. MANAGULI,

TQ: B. BAGEWADI,

VIJAYA PURI - 586 101

4.

REVANASIDDAPPA,

S/O. GURALINGAPPA HAVANNAVAR,

AGED : 63 YEARS,

OCC : AGRICULTURE,

R/O. MANAGULLI,

TQ : B. BAGEWADI,

DIST. VIJAYAPUR - 586 101

…

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADV.

FOR R1(A) TO R1(F)

R2, R3, R4 ARE SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION-100 OF

CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

18.11.2015, PASSED IN R.A. NO.94/2014, ON THE

FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAPUR AT: VIJAYAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL

AND ALLOWING THE PETITION AND DECREE DATED

22.09.2011, PASSED IN F.D.P.NO.2/2003 (OLD F.D.P.

NO.26/1995) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE & JMFC BASAVANA BAGEWADI.

5

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The present regular second appeal is filed under

Section-100 of Code of Civil Procedure, challenging

the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.94/2014,

dated 18.11.2015, by the court of the 3rd Additional

District Judge at Vijayapur, dismissing I.A.No.1 and

main appeal, confirming the judgment and decree

passed dated 22.09.2011, passed by the Senior Civil

Judge & JMC, Basavanabagewadi in F.D.P. No.2/2003.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Appellant No.1 - Mahantappa, deceased was

defendant

No.1

in

the

original

suit

in

O.S.No.30/1991. The suit came to be decreed. It is

also submitted that the final decree was drawn on

22.09.2011. But it is the contention of the appellant

that defendant No.1 died and without issuing notice to

6

the LRs of defendant No.1 final decree was drawn on

22.09.2011. Against that, the legal representatives of

defendant

No.1

preferred

regular

appeal

in

R.A.No.94/2014. But the said regular a

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top