Remanded

Sri. H M Kanakaraju v. Venkatappa

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2024RSA/1079/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two regular second appeals were filed against a second appeal judgment deciding property disputes involving claims of adverse possession. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the lower courts' decisions, and remanded the matter to the trial court to determine party relationships and adjudicate adverse possession with all parties present. The suit is directed to be disposed of within nine

What did the court decide?

Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside; matter remitted to Trial Court with stay of revenue entries and status quo pending trial.

Sri. H M Kanakaraju Vs Venkatappa — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1079 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1009 OF 2020 (DEC)

¶8

IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1079 OF 2020:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. H.M.KANAKARAJU S/O SRI MUNISWAMAPPA AGEDA BOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT

¶11

HAROHALLI VILLAGE MUTHSANDRA POST ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 067

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE)

¶16

VENKATAPPA

¶17

SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶18

SAMPIGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

¶19

VIJAYAMMA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶21

K.V. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶22

K.V. NAGARAJ S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶23

K.V. MANJULA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA W/O ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶24

K.V. PUSHPA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA W/O LATE DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶25

K.V. PRATHEESH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶26

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF LAKKURU VILLAGE AND HOBLI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130

¶27

RADHA BAI W/O H.K.NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O NO.154/1, 2^ND MAIN ROAD NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶28

SRI SRISHANTHA S/O ANANTHACHAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O NO.53/80, SURVEY STREET WARD NO.50 BANADUNAVARA BEEDHI BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.

¶29

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶30

SMT. RADHAMMA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O PURA VILLAGE LAKKURU HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VARUN P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7; SRI SRIVATSA S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.PARVATHY R. NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND R10; NOTICE TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29.03.2023)

¶33

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT KOLAR ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.263/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR.

¶34

IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1009 OF 2020:

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

1 . SMT. RADHA BAI W/O H.K.NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.154/1, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM BENGALURU-560 021

¶37

2 . SMT. RADHAMMA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT PURA VILLAGE, LOKKUR HOBLI MALUR TALUK-563 160. …APPELLANTS

¶38

(BY SRI SRIVATSA S. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VISHWANATHA SHETTY V., ADVOCATE)

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶40

AND:

¶41

VENKATAPPA

¶42

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

¶43

SMT. SAMPIGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED AABOUT 83 YEARS

¶44

SMT.VIJAYAMMA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶45

SRI K.V. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶46

SRI K.V. NAGARAJ S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶47

SMT. K.V. MANJULA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA W/O ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶48

SMT. K.V.PUSHPA D/O LATE VENKATAPPA W/O LATE DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶49

SRI K.V.PRATHEESH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶50

ALL ARE

¶51

R/AT LOKKURU VILLAGE AND HOBLI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶52

SRI SRISHANTHA S/O ANANTHACHAR

¶53

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶54

MAJOR, R/AT NO.53/80, SURVEY NO.50 BANDUNAVARA BEEDHI BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004.

¶55

SRI BABU GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O GOPALAPPA R/AT NEAR POLICE STATION (OUT POST) LAKKUR, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563160.

¶56

(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 27.10.2021)

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VARUN P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7; SRI ARNAV A.BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R9; NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.10.2020)

¶59

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER 100 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.263/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR.

¶60

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

¶61

JUDGMENT

¶62

Heard the learned counsels for the appellants and learned

¶63

counsel for the respondents in both the appeals.

¶64

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶65

These two second appeals are arising out of the common judgment passed in O.S.No.263/2011 and R.A.No.10/2019. On the previous date of occasion, permission was sought by the appellant in R.S.A.No.1079/2020 to come on record and he was not party in both the original suit and also in regular appeal. The very contention of the appellant in the said appeal is that he is the subsequent purchaser and this Court having taken note of the fact that an application was filed by the very plaintiff before the Trial Court to come on record seeking that he is a necessary party before the Trial Court and no decision was taken by the Trial Court whether he is a necessary party or not and without passing any orders on the said application, matter has been considered on merits, this Court allowed the application and arrived at a conclusion that he is a necessary party.

¶66

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 in both the appeals would contend that with regard to the appeal in R.S.A.No.1079/2020, the matter requires to be remanded, since the appellant therein was not made as party in the original suit. Learned counsel for the appellants in R.S.A.No.1009/2020 would contend that the appellants in the

¶67

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶68

said appeal are disputing the very ownership of Praneshachar and Tulasi Bai. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court the finding given by the First Appellate Court in Paragraph No.19 of the judgment, wherein the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is not in dispute that lands in Sy.Nos.16/2 and 16/3 were originally standing in the name of Tulasi Bai and Sy.No.34/1 i.e., suit item No.3 was standing in the name of Praneshachar. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court that defendant No.2 is the grand-son of the original owner Praneshachar, who has been made as party to the proceedings and the defendant No.1 claims to be the grand-daughter of Tulasi Bai and observation is also made by the First Appellate Court that lands in Sy.Nos.16/2 and 16/3 were originally standing in the name of Tulasi Bai and the same is disputed by the respondents/plaintiffs that she is not the grand-daughter of Tulasi Bai and the said Tulasi Bai died intestate issueless and there is no finding with regard to the relationship between the parties and relief is also sought for adverse possession in respect of three items of the suit schedule properties before the

¶69

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶70

Trial Court and the Trial Court dismissed the suit and the First Appellate Court reversed the same.

¶71

When there is no finding with regard to the relationship between the parties, the Court has to take note of the pleadings and the very averment made in the plaint with regard to claim of adverse possession and if a relief of adverse possession is claimed, there must be pleading admitting the very ownership and also the possession with the knowledge of the owners and animus has to be proved while granting the relief of adverse possession. Now the relief is granted in respect of all the three items of the suit schedule properties and when there is a dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties with regard to the original owners and also when the claim is made with regard to adverse possession is concerned and in the meanwhile, the defendant No.3 has purchased the property from the defendant No.1 and claiming ownership in respect of property that the defendant No.3 had purchased from one of the legal heir of the original owners Praneshachar and Tulasi Bai, the same also to be confirmed by the Trial Court, while coming to the conclusion with regard to adverse possession is concerned.

¶72

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶73

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 would contend that in respect of third item of the suit schedule properties in Sy.No.34/1, there is no dispute. Learned counsel appearing for the subsequent purchaser also would contend that, if any finding is given in respect of any items of the suit schedule properties, it will affect the decision of the Trial Court and there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in R.S.A.No.1079/2020 that the same cannot be segregated and the same has to be considered in toto in respect of all the properties, since the properties originally belongs to Praneshachar and Tulasi Bai. With regard to the adverse possession also, when claim is made that they were in possession with the knowledge of earlier owners, the same has to be decided together. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶74

In view of the observations made hereinabove, the matters require to be remanded and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court requires to be set aside, since there is a divergent finding with regard to adverse possession. Taking note of the discussion made by this

¶75

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶76

Court, the matter requires consideration afresh by giving opportunity to the appellant in R.S.A.No.1079/2020, who has been permitted to file the appeal before this Court considering the very claim made by him. Hence, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside and matter is remitted to the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh.

¶77

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶78

following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

(i) The regular second appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree of both the Courts are set aside.

¶81

(ii) The appellants and the respondents in both the appeals are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 14.08.2024.

¶82

(iii) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court without expecting any notice from the Trial Court.

¶83

(iv) Learned counsel for the appellant in R.S.A.No.1079/2020 is directed to file an application to come on record on the very same day itself and the Trial Court to allow

¶84

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶85

such application and permit him to come on record as party to the proceedings.

¶86

(v) The appellant in R.S.A.No.1079/2020 is given one month time to file written statement thereafter and the Trial Court to frame appropriate issues with regard to the dispute in respect of relationship between the parties and take decision in accordance with law regarding the claim made by the plaintiffs with regard to adverse possession in respect of all the three items of suit schedule properties.

¶87

(vi) The suit is filed in 2007 and already 17 years have elapsed. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the same within a period of nine months from 14.08.2024. The parties and respective counsels are directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case within the time stipulated.

¶88

(vii) The Trial Court is directed to give opportunity to the respective parties to substantiate their contention by allowing them to lead their evidence.

¶89

(viii) The order of status-quo granted by the Trial Court in favour of plaintiffs in the original suit

¶90

NC: 2024:KHC:27846 RSA No. 1079 of 2020 C/W RSA No. 1009 of 2020

¶91

12 -

¶92

shall continue, till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.263/2011.

¶93

(ix) The revenue entries standing in the name of subsequent purchaser and the defendant No.3 shall continue, till final decision is taken by the Trial Court in the suit in

O.S.No.263/2011.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78

Sri. H M Kanakaraju v. Venkatappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H M Kanakaraju v. Venkatappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Rajendra. R. S. Vs Sri. N. S. Vijaya Kumar

Smt Doddathayamma Vs Shri C Ningegowda

Smt H Manjula Vs Smt Uma Sridhar

Sri. Krishnananda Kamath Vs Sri.D.a.Ramanath

Sri Kamashetty Vs Sri Nanjashetty

Smt. Pillachannamma Vs Smt. Sakamma