Katte Ranganatha Swamy vs C R Ramanna
2021 Latest Caselaw 5025 Kant

                             1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

      MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.2 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1.     KATTE RANGANATHA SWAMY
       VIDHYA SAMSTHE (R)
       S NERALAKERE, SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
       HOSADURGA TALUK,
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

       REPRESENTED BY ITS

       PRESIDENT:

1(a). N T MUDALAGIRIYAPPA
      S/O LATE N K THIMMANNA
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

1(b). D MALLIKARJUNAPPA
      S/O DASAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

2.     SMT SUSHEELAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

3.     N K DASAPPA S/O LATE KATTAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

4.     N R RAMAPPA S/O RANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

5.     D RAMANNA S/O DANAVIRANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
                               2




6.     N C JAYANNA S/O CHIKKANNA
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

       THE APPELLANT NO.1(a) & (b) AND 2 TO 7 ARE
       R/O.S.NERALEKERE, SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
       HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527.
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

7.     T S SHIVAMURTHY S/O SIDDAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
       R/O THANIGEKALLU VILLAGE
       HOSADURGA TALUK 577527
       CHITRADURGA DIST

8.     N R RANGANATH S/O RAMANNA
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

       THE APPELLANT NO.9
       R/O S NERALEKERE, SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
       HOSADURGA TALUK-577527
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                             ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     C R RAMANNA
       S/O CHIKKARANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.

2.     RAMANNA S/O DASAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

3.     HANUMANNA S/O.DASAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

4.     G BASAPPA S/O GUNDANNA
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

5.     K R RAMALINGAPPA
       S/O KARIRANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
       HIGH SCHOOL CLERK
                               3




 6.    H KALLESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

 7.    M GIRIYAPPA S/O LATE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

 8.    S R SANNARANGAPPA
       S/O G SANNARANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.

 9.    G RANGAPPA S/O B GOVINDAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

10.    R KATAPPA S/O LATE ODORANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

11 .   B CHANDRAPPA S/O DODDAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

12.    R SANNARANGAPPA S/O S RANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

13 .   P RANGAPPA S/O CHIGARANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

14.    B.K.RATHNAMMA W/O. CHANDRAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

       THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 AND 10 TO 13 ARE
       AGRICULTURIST AND THE RESPONDENT
       NO.4 TO 6 ARE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS,
       ALL ARE R/O. S.NERALAKERE VILLAGE,
       SRIRAMPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577527
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
 (BY SRI.CHANDRAKANTH R PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R13)

       THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(U) OF CPC,
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2017
 PASSED IN R.A. NO.208/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
 CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
 APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
 DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.149/2008 ON THE FILE
                               4




OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA AND
REMANDING THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER IT
AFRESH ON MERITS WITH A DIRECTION TO READMIT THE SUIT
UNDER ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER.

     THIS MSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

O.S.No.149/2008 from which the present appeal arises,

was dismissed on 18.10.2019 and hence, the present

appeal has become infructuous.

2. The said submission is placed on record.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as

having become infructuous.

It is upon for the appellants to raise all such

contentions as are available to them in the regular appeal

filed by the appellants in R.A.No.208/2016.

Sd/-

JUDGE NR/NM