Dismissed¶44

S Gangaiah Since Dead by His Lrs v. G.Shanthamma Since Dead by Her Lrs

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2025RSA/758/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 758 of 2022 (INJ); decided 02.09.2025 by Justice V Srishananda; Tumakuru; cancellation of sale deed dated 18.01.2007; O.S. No.206/2007; R.A. No.142/2018; withdrawal of suit with liberty; fresh consolidated suit for declaration of title; defenses including limitation kept open; memo filed by counsel; Section 100 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 CPC; appellants' counsel Sri. Mahesh Kiran Shetty S.; parties S Gangaiah (by LRs) v. G.Shanthamma (by LRs).

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the appellants to withdraw O.S. No.206/2007 and file a fresh consolidated suit seeking declaration of title along with other ancillary prayers; all possible defenses, including limitation, kept open for the respondents in any fresh suit. ¶44

S Gangaiah Since Dead by His Lrs Vs G.Shanthamma Since Dead by Her Lrs — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34600 RSA No. 758 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2022 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S GANGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶10

GOWRAMMA

¶11

W/O LATE S GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶12

MAMATHA

¶13

D/O S GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶14

MANJULA

¶15

D/O S GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶16

Digitally signed by JYOTHI MANJUNATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

RAMYA D/O S GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶18

SIDDALINGAIAH S/O S GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶19

G MAHESHA S/O S GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:34600 RSA No. 758 of 2022

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ALL ARE R/OF AJJAGONDANAHALLI, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 220 (BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY S., ADVOCATE)

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

AND:

¶26

G.SHANTHAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶27

DODDAIAH S/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O MUDDENAHALLI KORA HOBLI - 572 128, TUMAKURU TALUK

¶28

M D RAJU S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O 14^TH CROSS, NANDEEESH LAYOUT, SIT EXTENSION, TUMAKURU - 572 102

¶29

M D MAHESH S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO.55, 5^TH CROSS, K H B COLONY 1^ST STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079

¶30

SIRAJ S/O BAHUDISAB @ BASHASAB AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O GOODS SHED COLONY - 572 105 TUMAKURU

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34600 RSA No. 758 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.142/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.04.2018 PASSED IN OS No.206/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I1 ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.

¶35

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

After addressing the arguments for some time, a memo came to be filed by the learned counsel for the appellants which reads as under:

¶38

The Appellants named above respectfully submit as hereunder:

¶39

The Appellants have filed the above appeal as against the judgement passed by the Trial Court in OS. No 206/2007 dated 13/04/2018 which was dismissed and later on confirmed by the VI Addl. District and Session Judge, Tumkur in R.A. No.142/2018 dated 06.01.2022. The Appellants herein have filed the suit for cancelation of Sale Deed dated 18.01.2007 executed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No. 2 in respect of Suit Schedule Property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:34600 RSA No. 758 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ground that the property claimed by the Petitioner and boundary shown in the schedule attached to the Plaint are different even though Trial Court holds that the Appellants have retained the property after selling 2.01 guntas of land which does not tally with document produced. That apart, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the Appellants have not sought for declaration of title in respect of the property. In view of above said facts, the Appellants may be permitted to withdraw the suit O.S. No. 206/2007 with liberty to file fresh consolidated suit, seeking Declaration of Title along with other ancillary prayers in the interest of justice and equity.

¶44

Placing the memo on record, appeal stand dismissed with liberty as prayed for.

¶45

However, if a fresh suit is filed, all possible defenses are kept open for the respondents including the question of limitation.

¶46

SD/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶47

SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT-SG

S Gangaiah Since Dead by His Lrs v. G.Shanthamma Since Dead by Her Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Gangaiah Since Dead by His Lrs v. G.Shanthamma Since Dead by Her Lrs

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

Kenchappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Annayappa Vs Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta

Cyril J D Silva Vs Clifford D Silva

Nanjaiah Vs Chandraiah

Rudramma Vs Umadevi

Smt Sharada Shetty W/O Late Appu Mestry (Since Deceased) Sri Ramakrishna Shetty Vs Mr B Ananda G Pai