Dismissed¶39

Puttegowda v. Dr C Shambhavi

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2025RSA/829/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court; RSA No. 829 of 2025 (PAR/INJ); Section 100 CPC; second appeal against concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court; judgment and decree dated 25.10.2024 in R.A.No.4/2024, III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru; plaintiff purchased property with specific boundary; appellants retained 11 guntas out of 1 acre 11 guntas; boundary admission at Trial Court paragraph 16; cloud on title; second appeal dismissed; liberty to file comprehensive suit for retained property; I.As dismissed; H.P. Sandesh, J.; decided 03.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the appellants to file a comprehensive suit in respect of the retained property (11 guntas); pending interlocutory applications dismissed as not surviving. ¶39

Puttegowda Vs Dr C Shambhavi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the appellants to file a comprehensive suit in respect of the retained property (11 guntas); pending interlocutory applications dismissed as not surviving.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal could succeed despite the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, given the appellants' contention that they retained 11 guntas of land, that the boundary was admitted, and that the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the defendants' contention.

¶35

Court's answer

The second appeal is dismissed in view of the appreciation made by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court with regard to the property which the plaintiff had purchased with specific boundary.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is given to the appellants to file a comprehensive suit in respect of the retained property (11 guntas of land).

¶39

Key takeaways

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, any pending I.A. does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh, J.; oral judgment dated 03.11.2025) — Regular Second Appeal No. 829 of 2025 (PAR/INJ) under Section 100 CPC by the legal representatives of deceased defendant Puttegowda against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2024 in R.A.No.4/2024 (III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru), challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, who had purchased the suit property with specific boundaries. Counsel for the appellants urged that out of a total 1 acre 11 guntas, 1 acre was sold and 11 guntas were retained in the appellants' possession; reliance was placed on the Trial Court's paragraph 16 recording the plaintiff's counsel's suggestion that the plaintiff's property (house) lies on the southern side, and it was contended that a cloud on title remained over the retained 11 guntas. Held, dismissing the second appeal: the dismissal rests on the appreciation made by both courts with regard to the property purchased by the plaintiff with specific boundary; liberty is given to the appellants to file a comprehensive suit in respect of the retained property. Pending I.A.s stand dismissed as not surviving.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44155 RSA No. 829 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.829 OF 2025 (PAR/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PUTTEGOWDA

¶10

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶11

SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶12

SRI K.P. MALLESH S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. P. INDRAMMA, W/O SHANTHARAJU H., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶15

SRI AJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶16

THE APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT SY. NO. 292/2, PUTTEGOWDA FARMHOUSE ‘E’ BLOCK, VIJAYANAGARA 3^RD STAGE, MYSURU – 570017

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44155 RSA No. 829 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND:

¶22

DR C S SHAMBHAVI W/O. H.G. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT D. NO.308, HIG, ‘E’ BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR A, MYSURU - 570 017

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2024 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent

¶29

finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

¶30

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

¶31

learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44155 RSA No. 829 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

appellants would vehemently contend that totally, 1 acre 11 guntas of land belonged to the appellants. Out of that, 1 acre was sold and retained 11 guntas of land wherein the appellants are in possession of the property. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the extraction made by the Trial Court in paragraph 16 wherein the very plaintiff’s counsel made the suggestion in respect of the suit schedule properties is concerned suggesting that on the southern side, the property of the plaintiff is available i.e., the house of the defendant. When such admission is given and when the appellants have retained the property to the extent of 11 guntas and boundary also admitted, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the contention of the defendants. However, the counsel would contend that when the appellants have retained the property to the extent of 11 guntas of land, there is a cloud on the title of the appellants. Thus, liberty may be given to the appellants/defendants to file a comprehensive suit in

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:44155 RSA No. 829 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

respect of the property which they have retained i.e., 11 guntas of land. In view of the said submission, the second appeal is dismissed in view of the appreciation made by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court with regard to the property which the plaintiff had purchased with specific boundary and liberty is given to the appellants to file a comprehensive suit in respect of the retained property.

¶40

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.

¶41

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶42

Puttegowda v. Dr C Shambhavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttegowda v. Dr C Shambhavi

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

Mr. Vittal Maniappa Poojary Vs Mr. Chandrahas. M

Mr. M. Seediabba Vs Mangalore Electricty Supply Company Limited (Mescom)

Sri Venkataswamy H.N. Vs Sri H.N. Narayanaswamy

Sri. Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri. Karuppa Gounder

Nagarathnamma Vs Sri Narasimha Murthy N v

Sri Ajjegowda Vs Smt Lakshmamma