Dismissed¶43

R Shankarappa S/O Late Ranganayaka v. Smt Narayanamma W/O Late D S Ramaiah

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2025RSA/1967/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed; Section 100 CPC; Karnataka High Court 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:19077; RSA No. 1967 of 2012); suit for declaration of title and injunction; title claimed on revenue records vs defendants' registered sale deed; concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court; no substantial question of law; abatement — appeal against respondent No.2 dismissed as abated; common defence and common cause of action; appeal not maintainable; Chintamani courts; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

None; the second appeal was dismissed (the appeal against respondent No.2 had been dismissed as abated). ¶43

R Shankarappa S/O Late Ranganayaka Vs Smt Narayanamma W/O Late D S Ramaiah — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19077 RSA No. 1967 of 2012

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1967 OF 2012 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R SHANKARAPPA, S/O LATE RANGANAYAKA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶9

1a) SMT VENKATALAXAMMA, W/O LATE R SHANKARAPA, AGE: 66 YEARS,

¶10

1b) RANGAMMA, D/O LATE R SHANKARAPPA, AGE: 41 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

1c) SHRI MANJUNATH M S, S/O LATE R SHANKARAPPA, AGE: 37 YEARS,

¶13

1d) SHRI NAGRAJ M S, S/O LATE R SHANKARAPPA, AGE: 33 YEARS,

¶14

1e) LAXMI M S, D/O LATE R SHANKARAPPA, AGE: 30 YEARS,

¶15

ALL ARE R/AT MADIKERE VILLAGE, TAL: CHINTAMANI - 563 125, DIST: CHIKKABALLAPURA.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV. FOR APPELLANT 1 (A-E))

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19077 RSA No. 1967 of 2012

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

SMT NARAYANAMMA, W/O LATE D S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT MADIKERE VILLAGE, TAL: CHINTAMANI TALUK - 563 125, DIST: CHIKKABALLAPURA.

¶22

SHRI ANJANAPPA, S/O LATE VENAKTASWAMY, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶23

2(a) SHRI GOPALA REDDY, S/O LATE ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT MADIKERE VILLAGE, TAL: CHINTAMANI - 563 125, DIST: CHIKKABALLAPURA. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 15/06/2021)

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI MITHUN G A, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A), V/O/DT: 05/12/2024, APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST R1)

¶26

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 19.6.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHINTAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 18.9.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.18/1994 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, AND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19077 RSA No. 1967 of 2012

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2(a).

¶33

This appeal is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiff sought declaration of title based on the revenue records. The defendants contested the suit based on the registered sale deed in their favour. The Trial Court upheld the contentions of the defendants and concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of declaration of title which was sought based on the revenue records. The First Appellate Court agreed with the finding of the Trial Court.

¶34

Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgments and

¶35

decrees, the plaintiff is before this Court in Second Appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would submit that 2^nd defendant who is 2^nd respondent before this Court has died and no steps are taken to substitute legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2 and accordingly, the appeal against respondent No.2 is dismissed as abated. In addition to that, it is noticed that the Trial Court as well as the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:19077 RSA No. 1967 of 2012

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

First Appellate Court have concluded that the revenue records produced by the plaintiff are not sufficient to grant a decree for declaration of title.

¶41

In the light of the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants, this Court having considered the reasons assigned by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. This Court is of the view that no substantial question of law would arise to interfere in the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court which are based on the registered documents.

¶42

In addition to that, as already noticed, the appeal against 2^nd respondent is dismissed as abated, the defendants have raised a common defence and cause of action against the defendants is common. Hence, on that count also the appeal is not maintainable.

¶43

Hence, the appeal is dismissed .

¶44

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶45

GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 138

R Shankarappa S/O Late Ranganayaka v. Smt Narayanamma W/O Late D S Ramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Shankarappa S/O Late Ranganayaka v. Smt Narayanamma W/O Late D S Ramaiah

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

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority

M/S Recaero India Private Limited Vs Recaero India Pvt. Limited Workers Union

Central Board of Trustees Vs M/S Vikram Hospital Heart Centre

Chandrappa S/O Late Dasthimmaiah Vs Lingaiah S/O Dasthimmaiah

B G Nagaraja Vs Smt Ratnamma

Sri B S Dasa Setty Vs Sri K M Krishne Urs