Dismissed

Shri Narayanaswamy v. Smt Muniyamma

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2021RSA/85/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that this regular second appeal under S. 100 of CPC was not maintainable because the proper remedy was a suit for declaration of title. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to file a suit for declaration and consequential relief.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a suit for declaration and consequential relief of suit property; all other questions kept open.

Shri Narayanaswamy Vs Smt Muniyamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.85 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI NARAYANASWAMY

¶9

S/O GOLEM ANJAPPLA @ ANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KALLAHALLI VILAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125. ... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. VISWANATH SHETTY V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT.MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY

¶13

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶14

SHRI MUNI REDDY

¶15

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶16

2(a) SMT.B.R.LAKSHMIDEVI W/O LATE MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶17

2(b) YESHODA D/O LATE MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

¶18

2(c) KUM. VARALAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNI REDDY

¶19

AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

¶20

¶21

2(d) KUM.NAVYA D/O LATE MUNI REDDY

¶22

AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,

¶23

NO.2(c) to 2(d) ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER R.NO.2(a) LAKSHMIDEVI

¶24

SHRI.KRISHNA REDDY

¶25

S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY

¶26

MAJOR,

¶27

SHRI.RAJANNA @ MUNIRAJU SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶28

4(a) SMT.ARUNAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶29

4(b) VINAY KUMAR S/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶30

4(c) VANDHANA D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,

¶31

NO.4(b) & 4(c) ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER R NO.4(a) SMT.ARUNAMMA

¶32

ALL ARE R/AT KALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK – 563 125.

¶33

… RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI.V.F.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2(A & B), R3 & R4 (A); R2 (C & D) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R2(A); R4 (B & C) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R4(A) )

¶35

¶36

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 10.10.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.17/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTHAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2012 PASSED IN O.S NO.9/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTHAMANI.

¶37

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

After arguing the appeal for sometime, this Court expressed that the appeal is not maintainable and that the proper remedy available for the plaintiff is to seek for declaration of his title to the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant accepted the same and submitted that he may be granted liberty to file a suit for declaration of title and for consequential relief. The submission of learned counsel for appellant is recorded.

¶40

The appeal is dismissed with liberty to appellant/ plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and consequential relief of suit property, all questions are kept open.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Shri Narayanaswamy v. Smt Muniyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Narayanaswamy v. Smt Muniyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H.N. Basavaraju Vs Sri Subanna

Sri S R Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs Sri Gangadhara

Mohan Kumar Vs Nanjundappa

Narayana Reddy Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Narayana Reddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Shashikala Vs Mr. Harry Dsouza