Karnataka High Court
Smt Chinnamani vs B D Srinivasegowda on 12 July, 2022
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
RSA No. 555 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2014 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHINNAMANI
W/O VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O 2438, 2ND C MAIN ROAD
D-BLOCK, KANAKADASA NAGAR
DATTAGALLI 3RD STAGE
MYSORE-570 001.
...APPELLANT
[BY SRI. GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. B.D.SRINIVASEGOWDA
S/O B.DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O. BELAGOLA VILLAGE AND HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
2. B.D.GOPALAGOWDA
Digitally signed by S/O LATE B. DASEGOWDA
VEENA KUMARI B
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
Location: High
Court of Karnataka R/O. BELAGOLA VILLAGE AND HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
3. SMT. YASHODHAMMA
D/O. LATE DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/O KAREKURA VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
-2-
RSA No. 555 of 2014
SMT LAKSHMAMMA
DEAD BY HER LR's
4. SMT. SOWMYA
W/O. RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O. DASEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE
BANNUR HOBLI,
T. N. PURA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.
5. SMT. KUMARI
W/O B. M. SURESH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O THAGARAJA MOHALLA
BANNUR TOWN
T. N. PURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.
6. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O. M. B. KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O 626, 3RD CROSS
2ND STAGE, HEBBAL
MYSORE-570 001.
7. NAGEGOWDA
S/O BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O. KOTE MALADA BEEDI
BELAGOLA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
8. SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA
W/O. LATE GAVISIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O NO.533, KOTE MALADA BEEDI
BELAGOLA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
-3-
RSA No. 555 of 2014
9. B. ASHOKA
S/O BALU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGARA
BELAGOLA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
10 . SMT. PREMAMMA
W/O. LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O. BELAGOLA VILLAGE AND HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI V.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6 & R10;
NOTICE SERVED TO R7 TO R9)
THIS R.S.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.130/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND S.J., MANDYA, SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.08.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.22/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SRIRANGAPATNA.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013
passed by Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapatna) in RA.no.130/2012 and
RSA No. 555 of 2014
judgment and decree dated 30.08.2012 passed by Court of
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srirangapatna in O.S.
no.22/2008, this appeal is filed by plaintiff.
2. O.S.no.22/2008 was filed for relief of partition and
separate possession of plaintiff's 1/7th share in all suit schedule
properties, to set aside sale deed executed by defendant no.2
in favour of defendants no.7 and 8 and for mense profits etc.
After trial, suit was dismissed. Even first appeal filed
thereagainst also came to be dismissed, leading to this second
appeal.
3. Learned counsel for parties submitted that after
matter was referred for mediation, but as there was no
settlement, Mediation Centre, Mysore has submitted report
about failure.
4. Learned counsel for respondent sought
consideration of IA.no.1/2021. He submitted that said
application is filed by respondents no.1 and 2, who were
original defendants no.1 and 2. In affidavit filed in support of
RSA No. 555 of 2014
application, it is stated that O.S.no.22/2008 filed by appellant
for partition and separate possession, was dismissed. Even
R.A.no.130/2012, was also dismissed.
5. It is stated that suit was opposed on ground of prior
partition on 25.04.1973, wherein, suit property had fallen to
share of Sri. B. Dasegowda - father of plaintiff and defendants.
Said Sri. B. Dasegowda executed registered Will on
04.04.1997, bequeathing suit properties in favour of plaintiff
and defendants.
6. It is stated that during pendency of this appeal,
appellant and respondents no.3 to 6 and 10 submitted
application to Tahsildar, Srirangapatna, for getting their names
entered in revenue records, by accepting bequeathal under
Will. Thereafter, mutations have been carried out.
7. Copies of mutation entries and record of rights are
produced along with application.
RSA No. 555 of 2014
8. Though learned counsel for appellant sought to
oppose application on merits of appeal, since parties have
agreed to give effect to Will, which was subject matter of suit,
there is acceptance of impugned Will as well as impugned
judgment and decree. Therefore, appeal would not survive for
consideration. Hence, I pass following:
ORDER
IA.no.1/2022 is allowed.
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JY
