Karnataka High Court
S.K. Madegowda vs Boralingegowda on 10 December, 2021
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6452/2020 (GM - CPC)
BETWEEN :
1. S.K. MADEGOWDA
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
2. S K KUMAR
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
3. S K KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H B, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. BORALINGEGOWDA
S/O LATE NINGAIAH @ MOOGAIAH
MAJOR
2
2. KEMPEGOWDA
S/O LATE NINGAIAH @ MOOGAIAH
MAJOR
3. G L SUNANDA
W/O LATE S K BOREGOWDA
AGED BOUT 58 YEARS
4. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE S K BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
5. S B SRIDHAR
S/O LATE S K BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
6. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE S K SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
7. S CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O LATE S K SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
8. NETHRAVATHI
D/O LATE S K SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
9. S S NAVEENA
S/O LATE S K SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
10. S K KARIGOWDA
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA
MAJOR
11. LAKSMI
W/O S K KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
3
12. SRIKANTHA
S/O S K KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
13. SHEELA
D/O S K KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
14. SHASHI
S/O S K KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
15. GOWRAMMA
W/O S K NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
16. SAHANA S N
D/O S K NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
17. YOGESH GOWDA S N
S/O S K NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
18. S K BASAVE GOWDA
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 18 ARE
R/AT SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
19. G B SIDDEGOWDA
S/O BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
20. VENKATESHA
4
S/O G B SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.19 TO 20 ARE
R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
21. SAROJAMMA
D/O G B SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGARA
MANDYA CITY-571401
22. MAHESHA
S/O G B SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
23. RAVI
S/O G B SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.22 AND 23 ARE
R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
24. SHANTHAMMA
D/O LATE KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/AT GORAVALE
DODDA HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT
25. INDIRA
D/O LATE KALEGOWDA
MAJOR
5
26. NAGAMMA
D/O LATE KALEGOWDA
MAJOR
RESPONDENT NOS.25 AND 26 ARE
R/AT SHAMBUNAHALLI VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401
27. PRAPULLA
D/O LATE KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/AT GEEGUNDIPATNA
KERAGODU HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
28. RENUKA
D/O LATE KALEGOWDA
MAJOR
R/AT MODACHAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.G.SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R28 ARE D/W V/O. DTD 01.07.2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2020 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT MANDYA ON
I.A.NO.16 FILED IN R.A.111/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNX-G
AND QUASH THE SAME AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
APPLICATION PRODUCED AT ANNX-E.
6
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Court must dispose of this petition
commencing with the observation that a suit for
declaration of title to a certain extent of land in
Sy.No.74 of B.Hosur Village, Mandya Taluk has not
been decided for over 45 years and the petitioners, who
are some of the defendants in the original suit, have
impugned the appellate Court's order rejecting their
application for staying further proceedings in the
appeal. The petitioners have impugned the order dated
09.01.2020 in R.A.No.111/2004 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Mandya [for short, 'the
appellate Court'].
2. The first and the second respondents, along
with another, have commenced their suit in
O.S.No.274/1987 for declaration of title and permanent
injunction way back in the year 1987, which is
renumbered as O.S.No.282/1991 on its transfer. The
suit is decreed by judgment and decree dated
24.09.1996. The petitioners and others have impugned
this judgment in R.A.No.182/1996, which on transfer to
the appellate Court is numbered as R.A.No.111/2004.
The appellate Court by its order dated 14.01.2008 has
deferred proceedings awaiting decision in the revenue
appeals in R.A.Nos.53 and 54/1989-90 on the file of the
Deputy Commissioner, Mandya consequent to the
orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.30266-30267/1999
which is disposed of on 08.08.2001.
3. These revenue appeals in R.A.Nos.53 and
54/1989-90 are subsequently disposed of, and the
petitioners have impugned the orders in such appeal
before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'the
appellate Tribunal'] in Appeal.No.633/2011. This
appeal is dismissed for default on 08.01.2015 and
thereafter, the petitioners have filed
Rev.Misc.No.1/2017. The appellate Tribunal by its
order dated 05.02.2019 has restored the appeal in
No.633/2011 for reconsideration.
4. In the meanwhile, with the disposal of the
petitioners' appeal before the appellate Tribunal in
Appeal No.633/2011 as aforesaid, the petitioners have
filed application for listing of the appeal in
RA.No.111/2004. The appellate Court has allowed this
application observing that though the petitioners have
filed a review petition, there is no stay of the
proceedings, and the suit, which is pending from the
year 1991 (1987) must be disposed of without further
delay.
5. The learned counsels for the parties are
unanimous in their submission that after the
restoration of the appeal before the appellate Tribunal in
Appeal No.633/2011, the matter is directed to be posted
before the Tribunal's Bench at Mysuru Camp and it
would be open to the parties to file necessary
application for disposal of the appeal by the appellate
Tribunal at its principal/head quarter Bench. In fact,
the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners will make necessary application before the
appellate Tribunal after serving a copy thereof on the
learned counsel for the contesting respondents in the
present case and also request the appellate Tribunal to
dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
6. These submissions are considered in the
light of the fact that the contesting respondents have
thus far accepted the position that the decision in
appeal in R.A.No.111/2004 before the appellate Court
must await the outcome of the revenue appeals
consequent to the decision of this Court in
W.P.Nos.30266-30267/1999, and not insist on the
appeal being taken up until the petitioners' appeal in
No.633/2011 is dismissed for default by the appellate
Tribunal and presently, the appeal before the appellate
Tribunal is restored for decision on merits.
7. In these circumstances, and to ensure
effective and complete decision on merits of the rival
claims, this Court must dispose of the writ proceedings
requesting the appellate Tribunal to expeditiously
dispose of the petitioners' appeal in Appeal
No.633/2011 calling upon the petitioners, and the
contesting respondents, to file necessary application in
this regard, and the appellate Tribunal is requested to
decide such appeal on merits within eight [8] weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. Further, the contesting respondents -
defendants is also reserved with liberty to seek for
disposal of the appeal in R.A.No.111/2004 by the
appellate Court notwithstanding the pending appeal in
Appeal No.633/2011 before appellate Tribunal if they
could demonstrate that the appeal in R.A.No.111/2004
could be decided independent of the decision by the
appellate Tribunal. If these respondents file necessary
application with such request, the appellate Court shall
consider such application and decide the appeal on
merits.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
RB
