Second appeal dismissed as infructuous since the execution petition was closed and the respondents had already obtained possession of the suit property.
Second appeal dismissed as having become infructuous.
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 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2012 (RES)
BETWEEN:
APPELLANTS 1 & 2 ARE R/AT BHANDARA BASADI ROAD SRAVANABELAGOLA – 573 116
Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: High Court of Karnataka
ACCOMODATION OFFICE, SDJMIC
OFFICE, SRAVANABELAGOLA – 573 116
NC: 2023:KHC:38726 RSA No. 29 of 2012
D.NO.794, 3RD BLOCK 14TH MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 011
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H R ANANTHAKRISHNA MURTHY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
TRIBHUVAN TILAK TRUST SRAVANABELAGOLA – 573 116 CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.70/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.2.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.266/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., CHANNARAYAPATNA.
NC: 2023:KHC:38726 RSA No. 29 of 2012
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed by the appellants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011, passed in R.A.No.70/2011 by the Fast Track Court at Channarayapatna, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2009 passed in O.S.No.266/2004 by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC,
Channarayapatna.
The respondents filed a suit for possession. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 28.02.2009. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and decree
NC: 2023:KHC:38726 RSA No. 29 of 2012
passed by the trial Court, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.70/2011. The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.10.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants / appellants with cost and also partly allowed the cross-objection filed by the respondents / plaintiffs with cost by modifying the judgment of the trial Court and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of damages in addition to the relief of possession as granted by the courts below and further held that the plaintiff Trust is entitled for the relief of damages from the defendants from 01.09.2004, till the date of deliver of possession of the schedule property to the plaintiffs, at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. The appellants aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by courts below, have filed this second appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:38726 RSA No. 29 of 2012
possession of the schedule property to the respondents and adjourned the matter to 20.04.2012. Meanwhile, the appellants filed an application for advancing the date of hearing to 16.04.2012. The executing Court has taken the application on record and advanced the case from 20.04.2012 to 16.04.2012 and further the learned counsel for the appellants submitted before the executing Court that the appellants have filed the instant appeal and filed a memo along with the Xerox copies of memorandum of appeal. The executing Court after hearing the parties, recorded a finding that there is no interim order granted in the instant appeal and further the learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the respondent has already taken possession of the schedule property as per the direction of the Court and accordingly, the execution petition came to be closed vide order dated 01.09.2012. The learned counsel for the respondents filed a memo along with the copy of order sheet in E.P.No.49/2011. The suit is for the relief of possession, and the respondents have already executed the judgment and decree passed by
NC: 2023:KHC:38726 RSA No. 29 of 2012
the trial Court, confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The said fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
SSB,RD
SMT. KOUSHALAYA W/O LATE PARSHWANATHAIAH MAJOR
SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE PARSHWANATHAIAH
SMT. SACHIDEVI D/O PARSHWANATHAIAH
SMT. SHANTHALA D/O LATE PARSHAWANATHAIAH
SMT. PUSHPA D/O LATE PARSHAWANATHAIAH
TRIBHUVAN TILAK TRUST
ASHOK S. KINAGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
