Y M Hanumegowda Vs Smt. Doddalingamma

SMT. DODDALINGAMMA, W/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ BASAVEGOWDA, AGED 83 YEARS, R/O YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 436.

¶14

S.BOMMEGOWDA, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ BASAVEGOWDA, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 436.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:31022 RSA No. 1689 of 2021

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MANGALAMMA, D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ BASAVEGOWDA, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 436.

¶19

Y.S.BASAVARAJU, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ BASAVEGOWDA, AGED 47 YEARS,

¶20

R/O YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 436.

¶21

Y.S.NAGESHAMURTHY, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA BASAVEGOWDA, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 436.

¶22

Y.M.MARISWAMY, S/O G. MARIGOWDA, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 436.

¶23

E. NAGARAJU, S/O EREGOWDA KADEGOWDA, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:31022 RSA No. 1689 of 2021

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 436.

¶28

BASAVEGOWDA @ DODDATHAMMAIAH, S/O BASAVEGOWDANA SIDDEGOWDA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 436.

¶29

J. HANUMEGOWDA, S/O LATE JAVARAYEEGOWDA, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 436.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. SHRIDHARAMURTHY H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2, R-4 AND R-5;R-3 - SERVED)

¶32

¶33

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.11.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.9/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.228/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MADDUR.

¶34

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

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31022 RSA No. 1689 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

Heard Sri.B.S. Ananthakrishna, learned counsel for

¶40

the appellant/plaintiff No.1 and Sri. Shridhara Murthy H.R., learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5.

¶41

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Sri. Siddegowda @ Basavegowda, who was the first defendant before the Trial Court in O.S.No.228/2010 and appellant before the first appellate Court in R.A.No.9/2015 is said to have died on 06.09.2017.

¶42

The appeal came to be dismissed for nonprosecution and thereafter the said Siddegowda had filed

¶43

the Miscellaneous petition to get the appeal restored. Subsequently, said Siddegowda said to have died on 06.09.2017. Without bringing the legal representatives of the deceased appellant Siddegowda, who was the first

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31022 RSA No. 1689 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

defendant in the Original Suit, on restoration of the appeal, it came to be allowed.

¶47

Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant, being the first plaintiff has filed this appeal by contending that the order of the first appellate Court is nullity as the appellant - Siddegowda @ Basavegowda was no more as on the date of judgment, viz., 09.11.2020.

¶48

Learned counsel for the contesting respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5 - legal representatives of the first defendant submits that the appeal came to be allowed not noticing the death of Siddegowda @ Basavegowda. Therefore the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant- Siddegowda @ Basavegowda may be permitted to prosecute the appeal before the first appellate Court, by permitting them to come and record and proceed with the case, in accordance with law.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:31022 RSA No. 1689 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

A memo is also filed by the learned counsel for

¶53

the contesting respondents in this regard.

¶54

Placing the said memo on record, the impugned judgment needs to be set aside, as the judgment against/in favour of a dead person is nullity, without adverting to the merits of the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memo.

¶55

Hence, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The appeal is allowed ;

¶58

ii. The impugned judgement and decree

¶59

dated 09.11.2020, passed by the first appellate

¶60

Court in R.A.No.9/2015, is hereby set aside, as

¶61

it is a nullity;

¶62

iii. The legal representatives of the

¶63

deceased first defendant, viz., Siddegowda @ Basavegowda are permitted to prosecute the

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:31022 RSA No. 1689 of 2021

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

appeal before the first appellate Court in

¶68

R.A.No.9/2015, after filing necessary

¶69

applications, in accordance with law;

¶70

iv. The legal representatives of the deceased first defendant namely Siddegowda @ Basavegowda and the appellant shall appear before the first appellate Court, without further

¶71

notice, on 01.09.2025 .

¶72

v. Office to return the records forthwith with a copy of this judgment.

¶73

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶74

BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Y M Hanumegowda v. Smt. Doddalingamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y M Hanumegowda v. Smt. Doddalingamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. a. M. Uma Vs Mr. M. B. Dalawai

Sri S R Basavaraj Vs Smt Venkatamma Since Dead by Lrs

Gangadhara Maniyani Vs Bellachi

Smt B T Varalakshmi Vs Kumaraswamy

Environmental Research Institute and Human Care Society Vs the Estate of Officer

Govindappa Vs Smt. Kanthamma