Karnataka High Court
Nagarathnamma vs Sri Narasimha Murthy N V on 3 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
RSA No. 2206 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2206 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O RAJANNA
D/O LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A MOODALAPALYA
SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DIST
BANGALORE - 562 120.
2. SMT. HANUMAKKA
W/O HANUMANTHARAJU
D/O LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT BETTAHALLIPALYA
KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 120.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA M R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY N V
KARNATAKA S/O LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
SRI. HANUMEGOWDA
(SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.)
2. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O. LATE HANUMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
3. N.H. PAVITHRA
D/O. LATE HANUMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
RSA No. 2206 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE VEERAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
S/O. LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
ABOVE 1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NAGARURU VILLAGE
DASANAPURA HOBLI AND POST
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 123.
6. SMT. M.SUMITHRA
D/O. C.MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.2910,
2ND STAGE, RAJAJI NAGAR
BANGALORE
7. SRI. JAIKUMAR
S/O. LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NAGARURU VILLAGE
DASANAPURA HOBLI AND POST
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 123.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2023 PASSED BY THE FIRST
APPELLATE COURT IN RA.NO.115/2019 ON THE FILE OF VIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
COURT AT BENGALURU, AND CONSEQUENTLY MOIDIFY JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.317/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT NELAMANGALA
AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
RSA No. 2206 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard appellants' counsel.
2. This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court in rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property.
3. The trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 07.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.317/2011, while granting the relief in respect of Item Nos.2 to 7, declined to grant the relief in respect of Item No. 1, wherein the trial Court in paragraph No.18, categorically held that the property originally belongs to one Veerappa, who is the father of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.4. On 01.02.1992, Veerappa and his sons have jointly executed an agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.5 with respect to Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Veerappa and his sons have not come forward to execute the registered sale deed as per the agreement of sale dated 01.02.1992. Therefore, the defendant No.5 had filed a suit in O.S. No.469/1994 seeking the relief of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44044 RSA No. 2206 of 2023 HC-KAR specific performance. The said suit was decreed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, RFA No.481/2003 was filed before the High Court of Karnataka. The said Regular First Appeal was ended with the compromise and additional consideration of Rs.70,000/- was paid by defendant No.5. Even after that, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not come forward to execute the registered sale deed, then, the defendant No.5 initiated the execution proceedings and got the sale deed executed through the Court in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Hence, Item No.1 of the suit schedule property is not an ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4, to grant any relief and the trial Court granted the relief in respect of other items and dismissed the suit.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.115/2019. After having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, the first Appellate Court also formulated the points - Whether the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala is justified in partly decreeing the suit and Whether it requires interference of the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44044 RSA No. 2206 of 2023 HC-KAR Court. The first Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, particularly taking into note of the documents which have been relied upon by the plaintiffs, in paragraph No.21, comes to the conclusion that a sale agreement was executed by Veerappa and his sons in the year 1992 relating to the property bearing Survey No.79/2. The plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 in O.S.No.317/2011 have challenged the claim by filing their written statement. The trial Court, after holding a trial, has decreed the suit on 03.12.2002. The first Appellate Court also, in paragraph No.22, taken note that R.F.A.No.481/2003 filed before the High Court ended in a compromise as the parties had filed a joint memo agreeing to receive the additional amount of Rs.70,000/- from the respondent / defendant No.5 - Smt. Sumitra and thereby requested the Court to dismiss the appeal. The High Court having taken note of the joint memo, dismissed the R.F.A.No.481/2003 on 19.11.2003. Having considered the judgment and decree and also the RFA's dismissal and also an observation was made that when the appellants along with their other family members have settled the dispute before the High Court of Karnataka, then, they -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44044 RSA No. 2206 of 2023 HC-KAR cannot claim any share in respect of Item No.1 property, which is the subject matter of O.S. No.469/1994. If the appellants are aggrieved by the judgment passed in R.F.A. No.481/2003, then they have to challenge the same. Instead of challenging the same, they cannot file the present suit. It is also important to note that the suit was filed in the year 2011. Though there was an earlier appeal, the same was dismissed in the year 2003 and hence, the first Appellate Court observed that it is nothing but an abuse of process of law and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
5. Now, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit in respect of Item No.1 property and also learned counsel would contend that the reasoning given by both the Courts is not justified and contended that they are not the parties to the agreement and also whether the judgment and decree will sustain without answering all issues and whether the sale deed executed, pending adjudication of the suit, is valid and will it curtail the rights of the appellants, have to be considered by this Court. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:44044 RSA No. 2206 of 2023 HC-KAR
6. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in this Second Appeal and also on consideration of the material available on record, it is clear that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion, in paragraph No.18, that there was a sale agreement and Veerappa and his sons have executed the sale agreement and consequently, the defendant No.5 filed a suit for specific performance and the decree was granted and the same was assailed in RFA No.481/2003 before this Court. The said Regular First Appeal was ended with the compromise and an additional consideration of Rs.70,000/- was received by the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and they filed a joint memo and got dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, even then, they did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed, hence, an execution petition was filed and got the sale deed executed and the same was also taken note of by the trial Court and the Appellate Court also, while confirming the judgment in paragraph No.22, discussed in detail regarding the said material and apart from that, the appellants and their family members have not challenged the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in R.F.A.No.481/2003. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:44044 RSA No. 2206 of 2023 HC-KAR Since the same was disposed of in the year 2003, but the suit was filed in 2011, it is nothing but an attempt made to extort the money from the respondents and when the earlier judgment and decree was passed in favour of defendant No.5 and the same was upheld in the appeal wherein they received the additional amount of Rs.70,000/- and subsequently, as an afterthought, filed the suit for the relief of the partition and the trial Court rightly granted the relief in respect of Item Nos.2 to 7 and in respect of Item No.1, declined to grant the relief, since the same was not the ancestral property and there was a sale in favour of the defendant No.5 in respect of Item No.1 property, the same was also got registered through Court. When the appellants and their family members have received the additional amount before this Court and got withdrew the earlier RFA in the year 2003 itself and when such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law in respect of Item No.1 property is concerned and in view of the same, no ground is made out to invoke Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:44044 RSA No. 2206 of 2023 HC-KAR
8. In view of the discussions made above, as a consequential order, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal, pending I.A., does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45