Sri. Revanna @ Moogaiah, Vs the Secretary

PASSED IN RA.NO.48/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, ALLOWING APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2001 PASSED IN O.S.NO.118/91 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, RAMANAGARAM.

¶25

IN RSA NO. 46/2017

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI. REVANNA @ MOOGAIAH, S/O THAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT BIDADI VILLAGE, RAMANAGARAM TALUK - 572 123, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. P.M.GOPI., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶32

...RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDR A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.48/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND PARTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2001 PASSED IN OS.NO.1180/1991 ON THE FILE OF THE C.J.JR.DN. AND ADDL.JMFC., AT RAMANAGARAM.

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:32730 RSA No. 1293 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 46 of 2017

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶39

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

Heard Sri.Raghavendra A Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in RSA No.1293/2019 and for respondent in RSA No.46/2017 and Sri. P.M.Gopi, learned counsel appearing for respondent in RSA No.1293/2019 and for appellant in RSA No.46/2017.

¶43

Appellant in RSA No.1293/2019 is challenging the order passed in RA.No.48/2001 dated 22.09.2016 on the ground that there was no proper service of notice after the order passed by this Court in RSA No.1393/2006 on 31.05.2013.

¶44

Respondent, who was the appellant before the First Appellate Court has also challenged the order of the First Appellate Court on the ground that appeal should have been allowed in toto and not in part.

¶45

A perusal of the material on record shows that reasons assigned by the appellant - Housing Board as to non-

¶46

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32730 RSA No. 1293 of 2019 C/W RSA No. 46 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

service of notice after the order of remand dated 31.05.2013 in RSA No.1393/2006 is incorrect, as the order sheet of the trial Court and the records maintained before the records of the First Appellate Court depict otherwise.

¶49

Nevertheless, since rights of immovable properties are to be adjudicated in the first appeal and respondent, who is the appellant before the First Appellate Court has also challenged the order of the First Appellate Court in allowing the appeal in part, without expressing any opinion on merits, if the appeal is ordered to be adjudicated afresh after affording fresh opportunity to both the parties on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by Housing Board to the contesting respondent, who is appellant in RSA No.46/2017 by setting aside impugned order and the matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court, ends of justice would be met.

¶50