Allowed

S.K. Madegowda v. Boralingegowda

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2021WP/6452/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an appellate court order regarding a long-pending suit for declaration of title to land. The Court directed the appellate Tribunal to dispose of the petitioners' appeal expeditiously and reserved the question of simultaneous disposal of the title appeal by the appellate court.

What did the court decide?

Directed the appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

S.K. Madegowda Vs Boralingegowda — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6452/2020 (GM - CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

S.K. MADEGOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶8

S K KUMAR S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶9

S K KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶10

ALL ARE R/O SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H B, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

BORALINGEGOWDA S/O LATE NINGAIAH @ MOOGAIAH MAJOR

¶15

¶16

KEMPEGOWDA S/O LATE NINGAIAH @ MOOGAIAH MAJOR

¶17

G L SUNANDA W/O LATE S K BOREGOWDA AGED BOUT 58 YEARS

¶18

RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE S K BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶19

S B SRIDHAR S/O LATE S K BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶20

GOWRAMMA W/O LATE S K SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶21

S CHANDRASHEKARA S/O LATE S K SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶22

NETHRAVATHI D/O LATE S K SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶23

S S NAVEENA S/O LATE S K SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶24

S K KARIGOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA MAJOR

¶25

LAKSMI W/O S K KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶26

¶27

SRIKANTHA S/O S K KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶28

SHEELA D/O S K KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶29

SHASHI S/O S K KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

¶30

GOWRAMMA W/O S K NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶31

SAHANA S N D/O S K NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶32

YOGESH GOWDA S N S/O S K NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

¶33

S K BASAVE GOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR

¶34

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 18 ARE R/AT SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401

¶35

G B SIDDEGOWDA S/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶36

VENKATESHA

¶37

¶38

S/O G B SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶39

RESPONDENT NOS.19 TO 20 ARE R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401

¶40

SAROJAMMA D/O G B SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGARA MANDYA CITY-571401

¶41

MAHESHA S/O G B SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶42

23. RAVI

¶43

S/O G B SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶44

RESPONDENT NOS.22 AND 23 ARE R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401

¶45

SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT GORAVALE DODDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶46

25. INDIRA D/O LATE KALEGOWDA MAJOR

¶47

¶48

NAGAMMA D/O LATE KALEGOWDA MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.25 AND 26 ARE R/AT SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401

¶49

PRAPULLA D/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT GEEGUNDIPATNA KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

¶50

RENUKA D/O LATE KALEGOWDA MAJOR R/AT MODACHAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

¶51

... RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 TO R28 ARE D/W V/O. DTD 01.07.2021)

¶53

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT MANDYA ON I.A.NO.16 FILED IN R.A.111/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNX-G AND QUASH THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION PRODUCED AT ANNX-E.

¶54

¶55

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶56

O R D E R

¶57

This Court must dispose of this petition

¶58

commencing with the observation that a suit for declaration of title to a certain extent of land in Sy.No.74 of B.Hosur Village, Mandya Taluk has not been decided for over 45 years and the petitioners, who are some of the defendants in the original suit, have impugned the appellate Court’s order rejecting their application for staying further proceedings in the appeal. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 09.01.2020 in R.A.No.111/2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mandya [for short, ‘ the appellate Court’ ].

¶59

The first and the second respondents, along with another, have commenced their suit in O.S.No.274/1987 for declaration of title and permanent

¶60

¶61

injunction way back in the year 1987, which is renumbered as O.S.No.282/1991 on its transfer. The suit is decreed by judgment and decree dated 24.09.1996. The petitioners and others have impugned this judgment in R.A.No.182/1996, which on transfer to the appellate Court is numbered as R.A.No.111/2004. The appellate Court by its order dated 14.01.2008 has deferred proceedings awaiting decision in the revenue appeals in R.A.Nos.53 and 54/1989-90 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya consequent to the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.30266-30267/1999 which is disposed of on 08.08.2001.

¶62

These revenue appeals in R.A.Nos.53 and 54/1989-90 are subsequently disposed of, and the petitioners have impugned the orders in such appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [for short, ‘ the appellate Tribunal’ ] in Appeal.No.633/2011. This

¶63

¶64

appeal is dismissed for default on 08.01.2015 and thereafter, the petitioners have filed Rev.Misc.No.1/2017. The appellate Tribunal by its order dated 05.02.2019 has restored the appeal in No.633/2011 for reconsideration.

¶65

In the meanwhile, with the disposal of the petitioners' appeal before the appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.633/2011 as aforesaid, the petitioners have filed application for listing of the appeal in RA.No.111/2004. The appellate Court has allowed this application observing that though the petitioners have filed a review petition, there is no stay of the proceedings, and the suit, which is pending from the year 1991 (1987) must be disposed of without further delay.

¶66

The learned counsels for the parties are unanimous in their submission that after the restoration of the appeal before the appellate Tribunal in

¶67

¶68

Appeal No.633/2011, the matter is directed to be posted before the Tribunal’s Bench at Mysuru Camp and it would be open to the parties to file necessary application for disposal of the appeal by the appellate Tribunal at its principal/head quarter Bench. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners will make necessary application before the appellate Tribunal after serving a copy thereof on the learned counsel for the contesting respondents in the present case and also request the appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

¶69

These submissions are considered in the

¶70

light of the fact that the contesting respondents have thus far accepted the position that the decision in appeal in R.A.No.111/2004 before the appellate Court must await the outcome of the revenue appeals consequent to the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.30266-30267/1999, and not insist on the

¶71

¶72

appeal being taken up until the petitioners' appeal in No.633/2011 is dismissed for default by the appellate Tribunal and presently, the appeal before the appellate Tribunal is restored for decision on merits.

¶73

In these circumstances, and to ensure effective and complete decision on merits of the rival claims, this Court must dispose of the writ proceedings requesting the appellate Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of the petitioners' appeal in Appeal No.633/2011 calling upon the petitioners, and the contesting respondents, to file necessary application in this regard, and the appellate Tribunal is requested to decide such appeal on merits within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶74

Further, the contesting respondents – defendants is also reserved with liberty to seek for disposal of the appeal in R.A.No.111/2004 by the

¶75

¶76

appellate Court notwithstanding the pending appeal in Appeal No.633/2011 before appellate Tribunal if they could demonstrate that the appeal in R.A.No.111/2004 could be decided independent of the decision by the appellate Tribunal. If these respondents file necessary application with such request, the appellate Court shall consider such application and decide the appeal on merits.

¶77

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶78

SD/JUDGE

¶79

S.K. Madegowda v. Boralingegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K. Madegowda v. Boralingegowda

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

Mr Anjinappa Vs Mr Lakshminarayanappa

Mr. Subbanna Gowda Vs Mr. Ramanna Gowda

Sri. M. R. Sathyanarayana Setty Vs Smt. K. R. Lakshmamma

M/S Reddy Structures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Thimarayappa

Zilla Vokkaligara Sangha Shivamogga Vs Nirmala. D. C.

Sri Syed Bahseer Ahmed Vs Sri Abdul Rawoof