Karnataka High Court
Patel Revanna vs Narasimhaiah on 25 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.892 OF 2025 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
PATEL REVANNA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
1. MANGALAMMA,
W/O PATEL REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
2. D.R. SHANTHAMALLAIAH
S/O PATEL REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
3. D.R. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O PATEL REVANNA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 4. D.R. BASAVARAJU
COURT OF S/O PATEL REVANNA,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT WARD NO.35,
DEVARAYAPATTANA,
TUMAKURU -572104.
5. SHYLAJA
D/O PATEL REVANNA,
W/O K.H. MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. GEETHA
D/O PATEL REVANNA,
W/O SHIVAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE
R/AT VIDYANAGARA,
TUMAKURU-572103.
H. HONNAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
7. RATHNAMMA N.S ,
W/O LATE HONNAPPA H,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
8. KOMALA H,
D/O LATE HONNAPPA H,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
9. SHWETHA H,
D/O LATE HONNAPPA H,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
10. SHARATHKUMAR H,
S/O LATE HONNAPPA H,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.7 TO 10 ARE
R/AT WARD NO.35,
DEVARAYAPATTANA,
TUMAKURU-572104.
PATEL D.M. SIDDAMALLAIAH,
SINCE DEADY BY HIS LRS.
11. D.S.CHANNAMALLEGOWDA
S/O PATEL D.M. SIDDAMALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
D.S. SHIVAKUMAR,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
12. SARVAMANGALA
W/O LATE D.S.SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
13. MANASA D.S.
D/O LATE D.S. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
14. HARSHA D.S.
S/O LATE D.S. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
15. HEMANTHKUMAR D.S.
S/O LATE D.S. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.11 TO 15 ARE
R/AT C/O CHANNAMALLEGOWDA,
WARD NO. 35, DEVARAYAPATTANA,
TUMAKURU - 572 104.
16. D.S. SHADAKSHARI
S/O PATEL D.M.SIDDAMALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
17. D.S. JAGADEESH
S/O PATEL D.M. SIDDAMALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ALL ARE
R/AT WARD NO. 35,
DEVARAYAPATTANA,
TUMAKURU-572 104.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
NARASIMHAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
NARASIMHAMURTHY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
1. MANGALAGOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
2. NAGARATHNAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
3. SHANKARAMURTHY
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4. MANJULA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
5. PARAMESHWARA
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT KUNDURU VILLAGE,
DEVARAYAPATTANA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND
DISTRICT-572104.
6. NARASAMMA
W/O VENKATACHALAIAH,
AGEDA BOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT KUNDURU VILLAGE,
DEVARAYAPATTANA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.
7. GANGANNA
S/O HANUMAIAH,
AGED: MAJOR,
R/AT KUNDUR VILLAGE,
DEVARAYAPATTANA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND
DISTRICT 572 104.
8. SUGNANA MURTHY
S/O SHANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT KANNURU VILLAGE,
MARASANDRA POST,
KUDURU HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAKUMAR V.C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R8;
SRI. B.M. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.31/2007 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 10.03.2000 PASSED IN O.S.NO.203/1986 ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Court heard the matter in length and also suggested with regard to the imposition of cost to the learned counsel for the appellants since, the matter even though remanded earlier twice and again seeking for remand for not adducing the additional evidence and also said that exemplary cost will be imposed to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the same has to be reduced since the appellants are before this Court twice and earlier also they had approached the Court by filing R.S.A and again before this Court and having taken note of the said fact into consideration and also matter was remanded in MSA as well as in R.S.A and inspite of specific direction, appellants have not adduced the evidence before the First Appellate Court.
2. Having perused the records also, when the relief is sought for temporary injunction, this Court while -7- NC: 2025:KHC:48876 RSA No. 892 of 2025 HC-KAR disposing the R.S.A, directed to file necessary application before the First Appellate Court and after Appellate Court without deciding the said applications, considered the same along with the main appeal. Apart from that when the application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment seeking the possession, since earlier also the suit was dismissed on the ground that possession is not sought. When such being the case, the Appellate Court also ought to have taken note of the reliefs which have been sought in the said applications for amendment as well as temporary injunction, instead of considering the same, the Appellate Court heard the appeal along with the applications which are pending. Even the First Appellate Court not discussed anything about when the counter claim is filed whether the same is filed within time and no discussion at all while answering the point No.6 as well as the Order Sheet clearly discloses that in view of the direction given by this Court also, Appellate Court hurriedly disposed of the matter by considering the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:48876 RSA No. 892 of 2025 HC-KAR applications along with main appeal. Hence, matter requires to be remitted back to the First Appellate Court by setting aside the order of the First Appellate Court in view of the observations made by this Court with a specific direction to consider the I.A.No.20, 21 and 22 and then the Appellate Court to decide the matter on merits.
3. The appellants are directed to adduce the additional evidence as earlier observed in the earlier R.S.A and the Appellate Court is also directed to give an opportunity to both the parties with regard to adduce the additional evidence if any by both the parties and then decide the same.
4. Having taken note of the discussion made above and also the conduct of the appellants and also approaching this Court repeatedly even inspite of specific direction is given, not complied with the order of this Court, it is appropriate to impose the exemplary cost of Rs.75,000/- and out of that Rs.10,000/- is payable to the respondents and remaining amount is vest with the State. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876 RSA No. 892 of 2025 HC-KAR The cost is payable within 2 weeks from today and only on depositing of cost, this appeal could be restored and consider the matter afresh in view of the observation made by this Court.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 19.12.2025 without expecting any notice from the First Appellate Court.
6. The Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within 6 months from the date of 19.12.2025 in keeping the observation.
7. The respective parties and also the counsels are directed to assist the First Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal within stipulated time. The Appellate Court is directed to take up the matter day to day basis immediately after the winter vacation-2025 since the suit is of the year 2006.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45