The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order rejecting an application to set aside an auction sale in final decree proceedings. The court held that the auction purchasers were bona fide strangers without notice of the decree being set aside and that the grounds were already considered in earlier proceedings and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 217 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SHRI KRISHNAMURTY S/O LATE SHRI. VARADARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.227, 53RD CROSS, VI BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
b) SMT. PRABHAVATHI W/O SRI. R. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.607, 75A CROSS, IV BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.
DIED ON 14.9.2016 HENCE LRS' TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS PER HON'BLE COURT ORDER DATED 16.08.2017
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.13, 26TH CROSS, KILARI ROAD, BANGALORE-560053 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 16.08.2017.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI. M.S.KOUSHIK, SRI VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5(a) TO 5(d), 6 AND 7;
VIDE ORDER DATED 08.10.2015, SERVICE OF NOTICE/S TO RESPONDENT NOS.1(a) TO 4 IS/ARE DISPENSED WITH;
VIDE ORDER DATED 08.10.2015, RESPONDENT NOS.1(b), 2(b) AND 3 ARE ONE AND THE SAME PERSON AND RESPONDENT NOs.1(a) AND 2(a) ARE ONE AND THE SAME)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2014 PASSED ON I.A NO.1/2013 IN F.D.P.No.125/2000 ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING I.A NO.1/2013 FILED UNDER SECTIONS 47, 144 AND SECTION 151 OF CPC READ WITH PROVISO OF RULE 92 OF ORDER 21 CPC.
NC: 2023:KHC:38584 CRP No. 217 of 2014
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question an order dated 05.06.2014 passed by the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in F.D.P No.125/2000 by which an application ( I.A. No.1/13) filed by the petitioner herein under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') read with proviso to Rule 92 of Order XXI of CPC was rejected.
The defendant No.1 was her daughter while defendant No.2 was her older son. The defendant No.1 supported the case of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 entered appearance through his counsel who later retired and no steps were taken for his appearance in the case. The suit was therefore, decreed ex parte and it was declared that the plaintiffs along with the defendants were entitled to an 1/4th share each in the suit property. Later, the defendant No.2 filed Misc. Petition No.777/2000 before the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12.07.2000 passed in O.S. No.6309/1999. The plaintiffs filed FDP No.125/2000 on 14.12.2000. On the application of the plaintiffs under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893, the Final Decree Court in terms of the order dated 20.04.2001, recorded a finding that the property was impartible and hence, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a sale of the suit property by public auction and distribute the proceeds to the Final Decree Court. Even in the final decree
proceedings, the defendant No.2 was placed ex parte . He filed an application (I.A. No.III) under Order IX Rule VII of
CPC to set aside the order placing him ex parte . On 02.07.2001, a memo was filed by the plaintiffs that they had no objection for the defendant No.2 to participate in the auction sale. Consequently, the Final Decree Court in terms of the order dated 02.07.2001, allowed the application filed by defendant No.2 under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC., and recalled the order dated 16.03.2001 placing the defendant No.2 ex parte. The defendant No.2 then filed an application under Section 151 of CPC., read with Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 requesting the Final Decree Court to value the shares and also sought permission to purchase the shares of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The application was allowed by the Final Decree Court in terms of the order dated 28.07.2001 and a valuer was appointed to value the shares. The Final Decree Court after obtaining the valuation, in terms of the order dated 24.08.2001, called upon the defendant No.2 to express his willingness by 28.08.2001 to purchase the
shares of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 at the
prices indicated by the valuer. On 28.08.2001, the defendant No.2 did not appear and therefore, the Final Decree Court posted the case to 29.08.2001 for taking further steps. The plaintiffs filed an application (I.A. No.VII) under Sections 2 and 6 of the Partition act, 1893
to bring the suit property for sale at a public auction. This application was allowed by the Final Decree Court in terms of the order dated 30.08.2001 and a Commissioner was appointed to conduct sale of the property and distribute the sale proceeds and issued him appropriate warrant to sell the suit property. Later, the Final Decree Court after hearing both the parties, passed an order on 11.03.2002 and directed issuance of a sale proclamation and a commissioner warrant to sell the suit property. Accordingly, on 12.04.2002, the suit property was brought for sale at a sum of Rs.16,60,000/-.
application (I.A. No.12) for stay of further proceedings in
FDP No.125/2000 pending disposal of O.S. No.4245/1997 and Misc. No.777/2000 and also filed an application (I.A. No.15) to withhold the passing of an order on the application filed by the auction purchasers under XXI Rule 86 of CPC for confirmation of the sale before / without conducting the Court sale in accordance with law. The application (I.A. No.15) was rejected by the Final Decree Court on 28.11.2002. Later, the ex parte judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.6309/1999 was set aside on 06.01.2003 but was brought to the notice of the Final Decree Court on 18.01.2003. In the meanwhile, the auction purchasers filed an application under Order XXI Rule 92 of CPC for confirmation of the sale of the suit property in their favour. The Final Decree Court after hearing the defendant No.2, allowed the application on 23.12.2005 and confirmed the sale in favour of the auction purchasers.
“ In the instant case, it has to be stated that the appellant could not have waited until an application is filed by the auction purchaser for confirmation of sale. He ought to have filed necessary application challenging the sale raising whatever ground available to him immediately after the sale took place. He has failed to do so nor has he challenged the order passed on I.A. No.15. It is not open for him to take up the subsequent events as supportive materials to challenge the order confirming the sale."
and accordingly, dismissed the appeal at the state of admission.
No.3036/2006 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.6286/2007 which was dismissed in terms of the order dated 16.04.2007. An application was filed by the defendant No.2 under Section 151 of CPC to dismiss the final decree proceedings as not maintainable in view of the ex parte judgment and decree
passed in O.S No.6309/1999 being set aside by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in Misc. No.777/2000 in terms of the order dated 06.01.2003. This application was rejected by the Final Decree Court in terms of the order dated 13.06.2011. The defendant No.2 challenged the said order before this Court in C.R.P No.158/2011 which too was dismissed on 17.08.2012. The petitioner/defendant No.2 having lost all avenues to challenge the auction sale, filed an application (I.A. No.1/2013) under Section 47 and Section 151 of CPC., read with proviso of Rule 92 of Order XXI of CPC for the following relief:
"Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that this hon'ble court be pleased recall and cancel the
titles of the Suit Property made over in favour of the Auction Purchasers in terms of order dated 23.12.2005 or in terms of any order or observation or position prior or after that and direct for the Restitution of Titles of Suit Property as was before for the purpose of dealing with the same in terms of the future decision of the Original Case OS no.6309/1999 in the interest of justice and equity."
under Order XXI Rule 95 of CPC., seeking to order delivery of possession of the auctioned property. The Final Decree Court considered both the said applications and in terms of the order dated 13.06.2011, rejected the application filed by the defendant No.2 for dismissal of F.D.P and while allowing the application filed by auction purchasers, directed issuance of a delivery warrant by specifically mentioning that only symbolic possession of the suit property has to be handed over to the auction purchasers since tenant / respondent No.3 therein was in occupation of the suit property. The defendant No.2 challenged this order before this Court in CRP No.158/2011, which was
dismissed in terms of the order dated 17.08.2012. The defendant No.2 filed an application (I.A. No.1/2013) dated 05.12.2013 under Section 47 and Section 151 of CPC read with Proviso of Rule 92 of Order 21 CPC. The Final Decree Court by order dated 05.06.2014, rejected the said application in terms of the order dated 05.06.2014.
Bengaluru, all further proceedings including auction sale of the suit property in favour of the auction purchasers was liable to be halted in view of Section 144 of the CPC. He contended that the Final Decree Court had erroneously relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh and another [AIR 1967 SC 608] and it did not consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chinnammal and Others v. P. Arumugham and another [(1990) 1 SCC 513 ]. He submitted that the auction purchasers had knowledge of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.6309/1999 being set aside and therefore, the judgment in Chinnammal’s case (supra) was aptly applicable to the present context. He submitted that the Final Decree Court ought to have followed the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chinnammal’s case (supra) and must have set at naught all proceedings in FDP No.125/2000 case. He, therefore, submitted that the proceedings initiated by the Final Decree Court to deliver symbolic possession of the suit property to the auction purchasers is without any basis.
NC: 2023:KHC:38584 CRP No. 217 of 2014
Chinnammal (supra). He further contended that when the defendant No.2 had already lost the challenge to the auction sale on the very same ground in MFA No.3036/2006 and CRP No.158/2011, the defendant No.2 cannot raise the same ground for filing another application. He submits that when the auction of the suit property is confirmed by the Final Decree Court in terms of the order dated 23.12.2005, nothing can stop the delivery of possession of the suit property. He submitted that Order XXI Rules 95 and 97 of CPC are designed to ensure that an auction purchaser gets full and absolute title of the property purchased at a court auction. He contends that this Court in MFA No.3036/2006 had noticed that the defendant No.2 had already filed an application (I.A. No.15) to withhold passing of any order on the application filed by the auction purchasers under Order XXI Rule 86 of CPC for confirmation of the sale. He contends that the grounds urged in the present application (I.A. No.1/2013) are grounds that were available to the defendant No.2 under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC and therefore, it should
be construed that the defendant No.2 had failed in his challenge to the auction sale and therefore, the defendant No.2 was bound to deliver up possession of the suit property. He submits that the Final Decree Court was right in rejecting the application filed by the defendant No.2 for dismissal of the final decree proceedings as well
as allowing the application filed by the auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the suit property. He further contended that the auction purchasers entered appearance in the final decree proceedings on 03.06.2002 and thus, came to know that the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2000 in O.S. No.6309/1999 was set aside in Misc. No.777/2000 on 06.01.2003, i.e., long after the auction sale of the suit property. He, therefore, prays that the petition being bereft of merits be dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC:38584 CRP No. 217 of 2014
under Order XXI Rule 92 of CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC for confirmation of sale was allowed by the Final Decree Court in terms of the order dated 23.12.2005. In the objections filed to this application, the defendant No.2 had stated the following:
" 1) The application filed by the Auction Purchaser to confirm the sale does not survive both in law and on facts; hence, the application has to be dismissed in limine.
2) The first respondent respectfully submits that the petitioner have initiated the above proceedings in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 12/7/2000 passed in O.S. No.6309/99; seeking partition and separate possession. Admittedly the aforesaid decree dated 12/7/2000 was an Exparte decree and admittedly, the respondent herein had filed a Miscellaneous petition No.777/2000 to set aside the exparte decree and the said Miscellaneous petition was pending for the period from 14/8/2000 i.e. from the day of filing of the petition by the petitioner invoking the provisions of Order 20
Rule 18 of C.P.C. It is respectfully submitted that on merits, the said Miscellaneous petition No.777/2000 came to be allowed by this Hon'ble Court on dated 6/1/2002. By allowing the said Misc. petition, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12/7/2000 passed in O.S. No.6309/99, which is the preliminary decree based on which, the above proceedings is being initiated by the petitioner.
3) It is respectfully submitted that by virtue of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 6/1/03, setting aside the decree dated 12/7/2000 passed in O.S. No.6309/99, all other proceedings proceeded, in pursuance of the decree set aside by this Hon'ble Court is a nullity and inexecutable. Hence, by virtue of setting aside the decree passed in O.S. No.6309/99, the right of the applicant to seek for confirmation of sale is extinguished. Hence the application has to be dismissed.
4) This respondent respectfully submits that recently the 2nd petitioner has expired on 17/1/2003. It has been brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court regarding the death of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner died intestate. There is no finding regarding the
rights of the parties over the property in question after the demise of the 2nd petitioner. Though in the decree originally passed, it has been declared that each parties are entitled for 1/4th share; now by virtue of the death of the 2nd petitioner, who died intestate, this respondent is entitled for 1/3rd share in the property in question. Hence without ascertaining the rights of the parties, the application in question is premature; hence the application has to be rejected.
5) Assuming but not conceding that the decree has not been set aside and the same is executable, by virtue of death of the 2nd petitioner, no attempt is made by this Hon'ble Court under the partition Act by giving an offer to the parties/members of the family to have an internal sale among the co-sharers, after redetermining the share. It is mandatory that option should be given to the co-sharer to buy the shares of other co-sharers before the public sale. The Auction Purchaser herein had participated in the public auction which was held prior to the death of the 2nd petitioner. Hence his right to confirm the sale without redetermining the rights of the parties after demise of 2nd petitioner and without giving an opportunity to the co-sharer to have the
internal sale, the above application is premature. Hence the application has to be rejected.
6) This respondent respectfully submits that after demise of 2nd petitioner, this respondent was not given an opportunity to re-determine as to whether the property in question is divided into 3 shares, the division is possible or not. In absence of any findings or opinion that a division of the property into 3 shares cannot reasonably or conveniently made and in absence of any findings that by virtue of redetermination of the shares, the internal sale among the members of the family is not possible. The application filed by the applicant is premature. Hence the application has to be rejected.
7) This respondent submits that by virtue of setting aside of the decree passed by the Hon'ble Court in suit O.S.No.6309/99, the entire proceedings in pursuant to the said decree dated 12/7/2000 is nullity and inexecutable on reversal of the decree, the law imposes an obligation on the parties to the suit, who received the benefit of an erroneous decree, to make restitution of the other party for what he has lost. The obligation arises
automatically on reversal or modification of the decree and necessarily carries with it a right to restitution of all that has been done under the erroenous decree. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has to restore the parties, so far as they can be restored to the same position, they were in, at the time when the court by its erroneous action had displaced them. Hence the application filed by the applicant by virtue of the order passed in Misc.Petition No.777/2000 does not survive and the same has to be rejected.
8) It is submitted that the averment made in the affidavit by the applicant in support of his application stating that this Hon'ble Court had rejected all the objections of the first respondent including the objection as to the conduct of sale is denied by this respondent. The objection which this respondent had raised in the objection were not the subject matter regarding which this Hon'ble Court has given any findings. These objections could not have been raised by this respondent previously as the event of death of 2nd petitioner and allowing the miscellaneous petition took place recently. Hence the averment that all the objections of this respondent were rejected by this Hon'ble Court are contrary to the facts.
The further averment made in the affidavit stating that irrespective of the fact whether any party to the proceedings is dead or the decree from out of which the present final decree proceedings has arisen is set aside are immaterial is the wrong plea taken by the applicant, which is contrary to law. It is absolutely false to state that as on this day, the only material point, this Hon'ble Court can consider in this proceedings is an application under order 22 rule 89, 90, 91 of C.P.C. as alleged by the applicant. The applicant is not entitled for the confirmation of sale as pleased by him and he is not entitled for any relief much less the relief sought for by him on the basis of equity. Hence the application has to be rejected.
9) It is submitted that by virtue of setting aside the Exparte decree, all proceedings in pursuant of such a decree are nullity and this Hon'ble Court exercising powers vested, had initiated proceedings and brought the property for sale; the sale is yet to be confirmed by this Hon'ble Court. Before confirmation of the sale and before the auction purchaser initiated proceedings for taking delivery of property, the exparte decree has been set aside. Hence, this
Hon'ble Court is vested with powers and jurisdiction to entertain the claim of this respondent, to give findings regarding the decree becoming nullity. Hence the application has to be rejected holding that the ex parte decree being set aside, all other proceedings pursuant to the decree is nullity.
10) It is submitted that assuming but not conceding that even if the sale is confirmed by virtue of the void decree, the applicant will not conferred with any title over the property in question and he will not be entitled to obtain possession. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court vested with a right to decide all questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and no separate remedy of suit is available to the parties. In the event of the application is allowed without determining the question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree under the facts and circumstances narrated above. This respect will be put to irreparable injury and justice will suffer. On the other hand, the applicant will not be put to any legal injury if the application is rejected."
NC: 2023:KHC:38584 CRP No. 217 of 2014
23.12.2005 following which a sale certificate was issued to the auction purchasers, rejected the revision petition in terms of the order dated 17.08.2012. Once again the defendant No.2 attempted to set aside the auction sale by filing an application (I.A. No.1/2013) on precisely the same grounds which was again rejected by the Final Decree Court in terms of the impugned order. The defendant No.2 who was closely following up the auction sale ought to have filed appropriate application for setting aside the sale on any grounds as are available to him under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC which was not done. Therefore, the defendant No.2 cannot file another application again for dismissal of the final decree proceedings on the ground that the ex parte decree in O.S. No.6309/1999 was set aside by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Misc. No.777/2000 on 06.01.2003. The contention of the learned senior counsel for defendant No.2 that the Final Decree Court had erred in relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Janak Raj (supra) and it must have relied upon
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chinnammal (supra) is misplaced in as much as there is no material to indicate that the auction purchasers were remotely connected to the decree holders/plaintiffs or the defendant No.2 in the suit. There was nothing to show that the auction purchasers had notice and knowledge of
the proceedings in Misc. No.777/2000. Therefore, as rightly held by the Final Decree Court, auction sale in favour of the auction purchasers cannot be set aside solely on the ground that the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2000 in O.S. No.6309/1999 was reversed or set aside by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Misc. No.777/2000 on 06.01.2003. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the case in Janak
Raj v. Gurdial Singh and another [AIR 1967 SC 608]
held as follows:
"24. For the reasons already given and the decisions noticed, it must be held that the appellant-auction purchaser was entitled to a confirmation of the sale notwithstanding the fact that after the holding of the sale the
decree had been set aside. The policy of the Legislature seems to be that unless a stranger auction purchaser is protected against the vicissitudes of the fortunes of the suit, sales in execution would not attract customers and it would be to the detriment of the interest of the borrower and the credition alike if sales were allowed to be impugned merely because the decree was ultimately set aside or modified. The Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 makes ample provision for the protection of the interest of the judgment-debtor who feels that the decree ought not to have been passed against him. On the facts of this case, it is difficult to see why the judgment-debtor did not take resort to the provisions of O.XXI R. 89. The decree was for small amount and he could have easily deposited the decretal amount besides 5 per cent of the purchase money and thus have the sale set aside. For reasons which are not known to us he did not do so."
25. Lastly, it was contended that the amendment of S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure altered the whole situation inasmuch as by the Amending Act of 1956 auction purchasers are to be treated as parties to the suit. We are not here concerned with
the question as to whether restitution can be asked for against a stranger auction purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree under S.144 of the Code of Civil Procedure and express no opinion thereon. In our opinion, on the facts of this case, the sale must be confirmed."
the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Janak Raj (supra) and held as follows:
"11. There cannot be any dispute on this proposition and it is indeed based on a fair and proper classification. The innocent purchaser whether in voluntary transfer or judicial sale by or in execution of a decree or order would not be penalised. The property bona fide purchased ignorant of the litigation should be protected. 'The judicial sales in particular would not be robbed off all their sanctity. It is a sound rule based on legal and equitable considerations. But it is difficult to appreciate why such protection should be extended to a purchaser who knows about the pending litigation relating to the decree. If a person ventures to purchase the property, being fully aware of the controversy between the decree holder and
judgment debtor, it is difficult to regard him as a bona fide purchaser. The true question in each case, therefore, is whether the stranger auction purchaser had knowledge of the pending litigation about the decree under execution. If the evidence indicates that he had no such knowledge he would be entitled to retain the property purchased being a bona fide purchaser and his title to the property remains unaffected by subsequent reversal of the decree. The court by all means should protect his purchase. But if it is shown by evidence that he was aware of the pending appeal against the decree when he purchased the property, it would be inappropriate to term him as a bona fide purchaser. In such a case the court also cannot assume that he was a bona fide or innocent purchaser for giving him protection against restitution. No assumption could be made contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and any such assumption would be wrong and uncalled for."
the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2000 in O.S. No.6309/1999 being set aside by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Misc. No.777/2000 on 06.01.2003. Therefore, the defendant No.2 cannot now reassert a ground which was also considered and negatived by the Final Decree Court in F.D.P No.125/2000 in terms of the order dated 23.12.2005 and in the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by this Court in CRP No.158/2011. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application - I.A. No.1/2013 filed by the defendant No.2 is valid. There is no error in the Final Decree Court allowing the application filed by the auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the suit property. In that view of the matter, this revision petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition against the rejection of an application under Section 47 and 151 CPC read with Order 21 Rule 92 proviso to set aside an auction sale on the ground that the prelimin
Whether the auction sale in favour of stranger purchasers is protected under Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh when the preliminary decree was set aside after the sale?
Whether the petitioner has established that the auction purchasers had knowledge of the pending proceeding to set aside the decree, so as to attract Chinnammal v. P. Arumugham?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh and anotherReferred¶113
Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh and another [AIR 1967 SC 608] · Who else cites this
Chinnammal and Others v. P. Arumugham and anotherReferred¶113
Chinnammal and Others v. P. Arumugham and another [(1990) 1 SCC 513] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Krishnamurty S/o Late Shri. Varadarajan
Smt. Shakunthalamma W/o. Late R. Varadarajan
Shri. M.V. Chandrashekar S/o. Late R. Varadarajan
Smt. Prabhavathi W/o Shri. R. Kumar
Shri. H.C. Shivaramu Advocate
Shri. Maruthi H.
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
