Dismissed

Smt Lalitha v. B.M. Abdul Rahiman

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2022RSA/1631/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. The respondents submitted that the suit premises had been acquired, rendering the suit dead. The court agreed that if compensation is due, it must be sought under appropriate remedies not this appeal, finding no substantial question of law arising.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. No compensation question entertained.

Smt Lalitha Vs B.M. Abdul Rahiman — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

¶5

R.S.A.NO.1631 OF 2014(RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS AGRICULTURAL COOLY W/O LATE SRI. NAGAPPA MOILY

¶8

SRI. BHANUPRASAD AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS COOLY, S/O LATE SRI. NAGAPPA MOILY

¶9

SRI. HARIPRASAD AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS COOLY, S/O LATE SRI. NAGAPPA MOILY

¶10

SMT. SUJATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS COOLY & BEEDI ROLLER D/O LATE SRI. NAGAPPA MOILY

¶11

ALL ARE R/AT "SHETTY PAL" TALAPADY POST - 575 023. TALAPADY VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK D.K. DISTRICT.

¶12

… APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD., ADVOCATE)

AND:

B.M. ABDUL RAHIMAN

(SINCE DEAD ) BX CR'S

¶18

SMT. B.M. AYISHABI ADULT, W/O LATE B.M. ABDUL RAHIMAN

¶19

MOHAMMED ASIF B.M. ADULT

¶20

MOHAMMED MEBEL ADULT

¶21

SMT. RAMELA ADULT, W/O T.K. KHALID

¶22

SMT. SABIRA ADULT, W/O ABDUL RAHIMAN

¶23

SMT. KHADIJA RISA ADULT, W/O YUSUF

¶24

ALL THE ABOVE PERSONS ARE R/AT EVEREST HOUSE PORT ROAD, POST KASARAGOD - 571 121 (KASARAGOD DT), KERALA.

¶25

SMT. BEEDI ADULT, W/O HAMZA R/AT NO.21/2, 4TH CROSS WILLIAMS TOWN EXTENSION BANGALORE - 560 046.

¶26

SMT. AMINA ADULT, W/O C.B. ABDULLA R/AT C.B. MAHAL 4TH MAN, P.O. CHANGALA- 671 541 (KASARAGOD DISTRICT)

¶27

SMT. B.M. AYISHABI NAMED

¶28

¶29

ABOVE IS THE WIFE AND OTHERS NAMED ABOVE ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE B.M. ABDUL RAHIMAN.

¶30

(BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R6 & R8)

¶31

THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.07.2014 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 117/2007 ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED:20.06.2007 IN OS.NO.40/2004 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN.), MYSORE.

¶32

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

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Heard Sri. K.Shashikanth Prasad, learned

¶35

counsel for the appellants and Sri. G. Ravishankar

¶36

Shastry, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

Learned counsel for the

¶38

respondents/plaintiffs submits that the suit was one

¶39

for directing the appellants/defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and

¶40

¶41

decree dated 20/06/2007 directing the

¶42

appellants/defendants to deliver vacant physical possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff within two months from the date of decree. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants preferred regular appeal. Concurring with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial court, the first appellate court, by its judgment and decree dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, appellants/defendants are before this Court.

¶43

3. Learned counsel for the

¶44

respondents/plaintiffs submits that in furtherance to the above judgment and decree an Execution Petition in E.P.No.269/2007 was filed and possession was taken. He points out to para-2 of the appeal memo in which the appellants/defendants themselves have referred to issuance of notice in the execution petition.

¶45

¶46

He also submits that presently suit

¶47

schedule property has been acquired by the National Highway Authorities and issue with regard to payment of compensation is pending consideration. In that view of the matter, he submits that nothing survives in this matter for consideration.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants does not dispute that execution petition was filed and possession was handed over. However, he submits that since the subject property was acquired, he is entitled for compensation as he was in possession of 13 cents of land along with suit schedule property.

¶49

respondents/plaintiffs on the other hand submits that such a question cannot be considered in this appeal.

¶50

There is considerable force in the

¶51

submission made by the learned counsel for the

¶52

¶53

respondents/plaintiffs. If at all the appellants/ defendants are entitled for any compensation in view of the acquisition of land, they are entitled to seek such remedy as may be available in accordance with law.

¶54

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no substantial question of law is arises for consideration. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Smt Lalitha v. B.M. Abdul Rahiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lalitha v. B.M. Abdul Rahiman

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

Mohammed K a Vs Abbas

Sri P Jayaprakasha Babu Vs Gajananya Pattasali Sanga (R)

Munigurappa Vs Sri Munianjinappa

Mariyappa Dead by Lrs Vs Sri Dasappa

Smt Geeta Dwarakanath Vs K N Rajendrakumar

Smt Hemavathi Vs Smt Saraswathi