Dismissed

Sri Laxminarayana Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives 1A Smt K Malleswari v. Sri Rudrappa Son of Late Sri Basappa Since Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2024RSA/100179/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where a defendant's purchased property is a different survey number from the suit property, and the plaintiff files a memo admitting no claim exists against that defendant, the second appeal does not survive. The High Court disposed of the appeal and dismissed the suit against defendant No.3 and his legal representatives, treating them as formal parties.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Laxminarayana Deceased Represented by His Legal… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:18328 RSA No. 100179 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100179 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. LAXMINARAYANA S/O. LATE SRI. K.NAGAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

¶10

SMT. K. MALLESWARI WIFE OF LATE LAXMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.54, RAMALAMMA PALACE, NEAR DURGAMMA TEMPLE, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI-583 103.

¶11

Digitally
signed by
VISHAL VISHALNINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:2024.12.19
16:01:48
+0530

¶12

SRI. K.NAGAMURALI SON OF LATE K.LAXMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.54, RAMALAMMA PALACE, NEAR DURGAMMA TEMPLE, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI-583 103.

¶13

… APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. NEERAJ RAJIV SHIVAM, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18328 RSA No. 100179 of 2023

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. RUDRAPPA

¶18

SON OF LATE SRI BASAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶19

SMT. CHANNAMMA WIFE OF LATE SRI. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶20

SRI. KOTESH SON OF LATE SRI. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶21

SRI. THIPESH SON OF LATE SRI. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. M. NEELAMMA WIFE OF SRI. M. MANJUNATH AND DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. JEETENDRA SON OF LATE SRI. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶24

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SRIDHARGADDA VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI–583 103.

¶25

SRI. LINGAPPA SON OF LATE SRI. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS SRIDHARGADDA VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI– 583 103.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18328 RSA No. 100179 of 2023

¶27

SMT. KOMALAMMA

¶28

WIFE OF SRI. THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SRIDHARGADDA VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI– 583 103.

¶29

SRI. M.B. BASAVARAJ SON OF LATE MALLAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED

¶30

BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶31

SMT. PUSHPAVATHI WIFE OF LATE SRI. M.B. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶32

SMT. USHA WIFE OF SRI. NAGARAJA AND DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. M.B. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶33

SRI. M.B. RAJASHEKAR SON OF LATE SRI. M.B. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶34

SMT. DRAKSHAYANI WIFE OF LATE SRI. M.B. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶35

SMT. MALATHI WIFE OF SRI. VINAY AND DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. M.B. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶36

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MEDAR ONI, FORT RIGHT SIDE, OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION, BALLARI–583 103.

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18328 RSA No. 100179 of 2023

¶38

SRI. MAHADEV

¶39

SON OF SRI. MALLAPPA

¶40

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶41

RESIDING AT BASAVESWARANAGAR, SRIDHARGADDA VILLAGE, BALLARI – 583 103.

¶42

SMT. K. TAYAMMA

¶43

WIFE OF KATTIMANI SHIVARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO.50(4), WARD NO.X, NEAR BEERAPPA TEMPLE BALLARI–583 103.

¶44

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI – 583 103.

¶45

… RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. V.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7; MEMO FILED IN COURT AND KEPT IN RECORD)

¶47

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908, AGANST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.64/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT BALLARI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.09.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.780/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BALLARI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF INJUNCTION.

¶48

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶49

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC-D:18328 RSA No. 100179 of 2023

¶52

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶53

The present Regular Second Appeal is preferred

¶54

by the LRs’ of defendant No.3, assailing the judgment and decree in R.A No.64/2016 dated 31.10.2022 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court” for short) and the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2016 in O.S No.780/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge Ballari (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court” for short).

¶55

Parties herein are referred to as per the rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶56

Suit property is Sy.No.396-A measuring 1 acre 46 cents with the boundaries as indicated below:

¶57

“ Landed property situated within the Registration and Sub-Registration District of Bellary situated at Sreedharagadda village bearing Survey No.396A, measuring 1 acres 46 cents with following:

¶58

East: Talur road. West: Sy.No.247 belongs to Rudrappa. S.

¶59

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18328 RSA No. 100179 of 2023

¶60

North: Sy.No.393 belongs to Vijay Kumar.

¶61

South: Sy.No.396A/2 belongs to M.Manjunath. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’)”

¶62

Suit seeking relief of declaration of their ownership over the suit property and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with a peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The undisputed fact is that Sy.No.396-A totally measuring 8.69 acres, one Pooramma w/o Angadi Siddappa got 3 acres 95 cents and Adibasamma got 4 acre 74 cents. The original owner of the suit property i.e., Adibasamma sold 1.46 acres of land in Sy.No.396-A to the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, is averment made by the plaintiffs in the suit.

¶63

The original defendant No.3, has contended that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.396A/2 measuring 1.43 acres, the property purchased by defendant No.3 belonged to Smt. Pooramma and Pooramma sold 1 acre 43 cents in

¶64

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18328 RSA No. 100179 of 2023

¶65

Sy.No.396-A, which was re-numbered as Sy.No.396A/2 to defendant No.4, who in turn sold the property Sy.No.396A/2 to defendant No.3 under registered sale deed dated 29.06.2002 along with other non-suit properties.

¶66

Learned counsel for respondent No.7/plaintiff No.3 has filed memo, which reads as under:

¶67

“2. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential permanent injunction with respect to the suit property i.e., Sy. No.396-A, measuring 1-46 acres, situated at Sreedharagadda Village, Ballari Taluk and District.

¶68

3. It is submitted that the deceased defendant No.3 has filed his written statement contending that his vendor's vendors Sant.Peramma and M.Mallappa who are the owners of the part of the property in Sy.No.396-A. who sold the land measuring 0-81 acres to his vendor Smt.K. Thayamma/Defendant No.4, vide sale deed dated:12-06-1997 (Ex.D-41), thereafter, the said survey number sub-divided into Sy.No.396A/2, and thereafter, the defendant No.3 purchased the land measuring 1-43 acres in

¶69

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18328 RSA No. 100179 of 2023

¶70

Sy.No.396A/2 from K.Thayamma/Defendant No.4 under registered sale deed dated: 29-06-2002 (Ex.D36), which is different property and not at all concern to the suit property. Even the power of attorney holder of Defendant No.3(a) who has been examined as D.W-2/K.Sadhashiva, also admitted in his crossexamination that no way their property is concern to the suit property.

¶71

4. In that circumstances, it is clear that the LR's of deceased Defendant No.3 are not claiming any right, title and interest in the suit schedule property, he may be considered as formal party in the suit proceedings.

¶72

5. Hence, when the claim of the LR's of deceased Defendant No.3 is not against the suit property, the present appeal do not survive for consideration and the same may dismissed.”

¶73

At paragraph No.4 of the memo stated supra it is stated that LRs’ of deceased defendant No.3 are not claiming any right, title and interest in the suit property and they are considered as a formal party in the suit proceeding.

¶74

The said memo is taken on record.

¶75

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18328 RSA No. 100179 of 2023

¶76

The memo filed by respondent No.7/plaintiff

¶77

No.3 indicates that there is no claim of defendant No.3 in respect of the suit property. Perusal of the plaint averments clearly indicate that there is no claim even made by the plaintiffs against defendant No.3 in the suit, as the suit property is a totally different survey number and not at all connected with the property purchased by defendant No.3. The LRs’ of defendant No.3 are before this Court and in light of the memo and the averments in the plaint, there being no claim made by the plaintiffs against defendant No.3 or the LRs’ of deceased defendant No.3, the present appeal stands disposed of, as the suit property which defendant No.3 has purchased is totally a different property and not connected to the suit property and hence the suit is dismissed as against defendant No.3 and the LRs’ of deceased defendant No.3.

¶78

SD/- (JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)

¶79

AT CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29

Sri Laxminarayana Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives 1A Smt K Malleswari v. Sri Rudrappa Son of Late Sri Basappa Since Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Laxminarayana Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives 1A Smt K Malleswari v. Sri Rudrappa Son of Late Sri Basappa Since Deceased Represented by His Legal Representatives

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Nagoji Bhavaku Dayagonde Vs Smt. Madhuri W/O Maruti Shinde

Sanjeevappa S/O Mallappa Kundapur Vs Bharatiya Adima Jati Sevaka Sangha (Regd)

Edigara Gurumurthy Vs Samanthri Nagamma @ Hammigi Nagamma

Siddamma W/O Sharanappa Nagalapur, Vs Subbhasraddy S/O Ramappa Bhomakkanavar

Shrishail Gurubasappa Kakhandki Vs Smt.Annapurna Mahadevappa Kakhandki

Mallikarjun Bhoopalappa Turamuri Vs Dr Sharad Nirayan Nadkarni