Karnataka High Court
A M Krishna Murthy vs Chandrappa S/O Venkatappa on 15 February, 2023
Bench: N S Gowda
-1-
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2199 OF 2006 (DEC)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1812 OF 2005 (SP)
IN RSA NO.2199/2006
BETWEEN:
1. A M KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O MANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
KRISHNA BAKERY,
PRASANNA TALKIES ROAD
CHITRADURGA
R/O 4TH BLOCK, HORAPET,
BHOVI COLONY
CHITRADURGA-577501.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
PANKAJA S
Location:
HIGH 1. CHANDRAPPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O VENKATAPPA
DEAD BY LRS
1(A) H.SHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
NO.126, SHANTHAMMA NILAYA,
CHIKKANAHALLI HOSA BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE-577004.
1(B). NIRMALA
D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA,
W/O H.BASAVARAJ,
-2-
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O. NO.832/10 B BLOCK,
SARASWATHI NAGAR,
NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-577004.
1(C). C.NETHRAVATHI,
D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA,
W/O CHIDANANDAPPA R.,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O. NO.100/A, OPP. RTCC
BEHIND SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE
T.K.LAYOUT, SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU-570009.
2. ESHWARAPPA
S/O CONTRACTOR VENKATAPPA
DEAD BY LRS
2(A). SARALA
W/O ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2(B). VANITHA
D/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
2(C). SUNITHA
D/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
2(D). SOUMYA
D/O LATE ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
RESPONDENT 2(A) TO 2(D) ARE
R/A JOGIMATTI ROAD,
NEAR MUNICIPAL PRESIDENT'S RESIDENCE,
CHITRADURGA
3. LAKSHMANASWAMY
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
-3-
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
K.S.R.T.C. BUS CONDUCTOR
KOLAR DEPOT, KOLAR.
4. Y.DHARMARAJ
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
LIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LIC BUILDING, BHANTWAL TOWN
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
5. Y MANJUNATHA
S/O VENKATAPPA
DEAD BY LRS
5(A). AMBIKA @ AKKAMMA,
W/O LATE Y.MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
5(B). PAVITHRA
D/O LATE Y.MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESPONDENT 5(A) AND 5(B) ARE
R/AT HITHLALLI, HITHLALLI HOBLI,
YALLAPURA, UTTARA KANNADA-581359.
6. MAHANTESHA
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/O JOGIMATTI ROAD
CHITRADURGA-577501.
7. ANJANEYA
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O JOGIMATTI ROAD
CHITRADURGA-577501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO C),
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.04.2011, NOTICE TO R2(A TO D),
R3, R4, R6 AND R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT,
R5(A AND B) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-4-
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
THIS RSA FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2006 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.103/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE
DATED 15.11.1997 PASSED IN O.S.NO.844/89 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) CHITRADURGA.
IN RFA NO. 1812/2005
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRAPPA
S/O VENKATAPPA
DEAD BY LRS
1(A) H.SHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
NO.126, SHANTHAMMA NILAYA,
CHIKKANAHALLI EXTENSION
NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-577004.
1(B). NIRMALA
D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA,
W/O H.BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O. NO.832/10 B BLOCK,
SARASWATHI NAGAR,
NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-577004.
1(C). C.NETHRAVATHI,
D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA,
W/O CHIDANANDAPPA R.,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O. NO.100/A, OPP. RTCC
BEHIND SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE
T.K.LAYOUT, SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU-570009.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE)
-5-
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
AND:
1. A N KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O M MANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC: BAKERY BUSINESS
R/AT HORAPET, BOVI COLONY
CHITRADURGA CITY-577501
2. CONTRACTOR YANKATAPPA @ VENKATAPPA
S/O. SATHYAPPA @ CHITTAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS,
2(A) GOWRAMMA
W/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT JOGIMATT ROAD
CHITRADURGA-577501
2(B) KAMALAMMA
W/O. SHETTAPPA
D/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT SARASWATHIPURAM
1ST MAIN,CHITRADURGA-577501
2(C) KRISHNAVENI
W/O SHETTAPPA
D/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU
2(D) JAYALAKSHMI
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
D/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT HOSA ANGADI
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION
SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT
-6-
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
2(E) MAHANTHESH
S/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT JOGIMATT ROAD
CHITRADURGA-577501.
2(F) RAMANJANEYA
S/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT JOGIMATT ROAD
CHITRADURGA-577501
2(G) SATYABHAMA
D/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT JOGIMATT ROAD
CHITRADURGA-577501.
2(H) SUNITHA
D/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT JOGIMATT ROAD
CHITRADURGA-577501
3. ESHWARAPPA
S/O VENKATAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS
3(A) SMT SARALA
W/O ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT SARASWATHIPURAM
1ST MAIN, CHITRADURGA-577601
3(B) MS REKHA
D/O. ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/AT SARASWATHIPURAM
1ST MAIN, CHITRADURGA-577501
-7-
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
3(C) MS SUGANDINI
D/O. ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
R/AT SARASWATHIPURAM
1ST MAIN, CHITRADURGA-577501
3(D) MS RASHMI
D/O. ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
REP BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SARALA R3(A)
4. Y LAKSHMANA SWAMY
S/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT KAMABADAHALLI VILLAGE
HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501
5. Y DHARMARAJ
S/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
LIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
R/AT BELTHANGADI
SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT
6. Y MANJUNATHA
S/O. VENKATAPPA
DEAD BY LRS.
6(A). AMBIKA @ AKKAMMA,
W/O LATE Y.MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
6(B). PAVITHRA
D/O LATE Y.MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
-8-
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
RESPONDENT 6(A) AND 6(B) ARE
R/AT HITHLALLI, HITHLALLI HOBLI,
YALLAPURA, UTTARA KANNADA-581359.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI D.R.RAJESHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
R2(A AND E TO H), R5 AND R6;
SRI B.K.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A TO C);
R2(B), R2(C), R2(D) ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;
R3(D) IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY R3(A))
THIS RFA FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 31.8.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25/93 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN),
CHITRADURGA, ALLOWING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF SALE AGREEMENT AND RECOVERY OF
MONEY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri A.M.Krishnamurthy, the 8 t h defendant in
the suit filed by Sri Chandrappa, has preferred this
Second Appeal.
2. Along with the Second Appeal, a First
Appeal preferred by Sri Chandrappa, who was the
6th defendant in the suit filed by Sri
A.M.Krishnamurthy for specific performance, which
has been decreed, has been tagged.
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
3. On 12.04.1988, Chandrappa instituted a
suit seeking for 1/8 t h share in the property bearing
Assessment No.5748/5761 measuring 40 x 26 feet
which is situated at 4 t h Block of Bhovi Colony in
Chitradurga. The said suit had been instituted
against his father-Venkatappa and his siblings
(defendants No.2 to 7). He also arrayed Sri
A.M.Krishnamurthy as 8 t h defendant.
4. It was the case of Chandrappa that the
suit property was the joint family property and he
had also contributed for constructing the structure
on the suit property from the income that he
earned as a contractor. He stated that his father
had raised a loan from Merchants Co-operative
Bank, Chitradurga, but he had failed to discharge
the same, as a result of which, the property was
brought to sale.
5. He stated that he and his brothers
immediately preferred a suit in O.S.No.374/1970
- 10 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
on the file of the Munsiff and JMFC, Chitradurga
against their father and also against Merchants Co-
operative Bank, Chitradurga and sought for a
declaration that they had 9/11 t h share in the said
property. It was stated that the suit was decreed
with the condition that Chandrappa should pay the
amount due to the Bank and he had accordingly
discharged the loan.
6. He also stated that thereafter his father
once again mortgaged the property to K.R.Manohar
and Sons and he had also discharged this
mortgage.
7. It was also contended that his father and
his brothers had also jointly sworn to an affidavit
in the year 1978 to the effect that one of his
brothers i.e., Eshwarappa has got 1/5 t h share in
the suit property and these facts proved that he
and defendants 1 to 7 constituted an undivided
hindu joint family and the suit property was
- 11 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
therefore a joint family property in which he had a
share.
8. He also stated his father had leased out
the property to Sri A.M.Krishnamurthy (defendant
No.8) in consultation with him and his brothers
and the rent that was being paid was being utilized
for the maintenance of the joint family. He also
stated that Venkatappa and his other brothers had
also mortgaged the property, even though there
was no legal necessity, to Krishnamurhty without
his consent.
9. It was stated that an attempt was made
to sell the suit property to Krishnamurthy though
there was no legal necessary and having regard to
these factors, he had demanded the property to be
partitioned and since that was refused, he was
constrained to file a suit.
- 12 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
10. In this suit, he brothers entered
appearance and supported Chandrappa and
pleaded that suit be decreed as prayed for.
11. A.M.Krishnamurthy, the tenant entered
appearance and contested the suit. He denied the
allegations of Chandrappa. He put forth the case
that Venkatappa along with defendants 2 to 5 i.e.,
brothers of plaintiff had leased the property in his
favour and thereafter they had also mortgaged the
property for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and they also
paid interest @ 18% per annum on the said
amount.
12. He, infact, stated that a registered
Mortgage Deed was executed on 14.10.1987 and
he was put in possession under an agreement
dated 15.10.1987. He stated that since he was
given possession of the house, it was agreed that
no interest was payable on the mortgage amount
- 13 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
and he was also not required to pay any rent for
the occupation of the house.
13. He submitted that thereafter on
22.02.1988, Venkatappa and the remaining
brothers of Chandrappa had agreed to sell the
property in his favour for a sum of Rs.1,21,101.00
and had executed an agreement of sale and also
received Rs.30,000/- as advance. It was therefore
stated that the plaintiff was not entitled for
partition and possession and the suit was required
to be dismissed.
14. The Trial Court on a consideration of the
plea and evidence, came to conclusion that the suit
property was the joint family property of
Chandrappa, his father and his brothers and the
agreement of sale obtained by Krishnamurthy on
22.02.1988 was not binding upon him.
- 14 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
15. The Trial Court also took note of the fact
that Krishnamurthy had infact filed a suit in
O.S.No.25/1993 seeking for specific performance
and the observation that rights and liabilities of
Venktappa would not arise for consideration in the
present suit and it would be subject to result in
O.S.No.25/1993. The Trial Court accordingly
decreed the suit and declared that Chanrappa was
entitled to 1/8 t h share in the suit property. It also
observed that the entitlement of his separate
share and possession would be subject to the
decision in O.S.No.25/1993.
16. It may be pertinent to state here that
this suit for partition was dismissed for non
prosecution on 03.09.19891 and a Miscellaneous
Petition filed in Misc.No.32/1991. The order of
dismissal was set-aside and the suit was restored
by an order passed on 11.02.1994 in the
Miscellaneous Petition.
- 15 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
17. In view of the fact that the suit for
partition had been dismissed for non-prosecution,
Krishnamurthy instituted a suit in O.S.No.25/1993
seeking to enforce the agreement of sale dated
22.02.1988, whereby Venkatappa and other
brothers of Chandrappa had agreed to sell the suit
property for a sum of Rs.1,21,101.00 and had also
executed a registered agreement of sale.
18. During the pendency of the suit filed by
Krishnamurthy, after the suit had been restored,
the Trial Court, ultimately, decreed the suit.
19. Krishnamurthy proceeded to challenge
the decree of partition by filing an appeal in
R.A.No.103/2004.
20. During the pendency of this appeal, the
suit that he had filed seeking to enforce the
agreement of sale dated 22.02.1988 was decreed.
- 16 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
21. As against this decree of specific
performance, an appeal has been preferred by
Chandrappa in RFA No.1812/2005, i.e., this
appeal.
22. On 22.04.2006, the appeal filed by
Krishnamurthy challenging the decree of partition
granted in favour of Chandrappa was also
dismissed and as against this, he has preferred a
Second Appeal in RSA No.2199/2006.
23. As both these appeals were interlinked,
they were ordered to be clubbed and the matter is
heard today.
24. Learned counsel for Chandrappa contends
that the Trial Court could not have decreed the
suit for specific performance in the light of the fact
that the suit for partition had already been filed
and Chandrappa was not even a party to the
agreement of sale.
- 17 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
25. It was contended that the evidence on
record clearly proved that the suit property was a
joint family property. He sought to highlight the
fact that Krishnamurthy himself stated in the
written statement that he was inducted in the suit
property by Venkatappa and remaining brothers of
Chandrappa and this by itself proved that the joint
family had inducted him as a tenant.
26. He also contended that Krishnamurthy
admitted that Venkatappa and remaining brothers
of Chandrappa had mortgaged the property for a
sum of Rs.30,000/- and this also confirmed the
fact that the suit property was a joint family
property. He submitted that in the light of this
very plea of Krishnamurhty, it was clear that the
suit property was indeed a joint family property
and therefore his share in the suit property could
not be denied and both the Courts had accordingly
decreed the suit and granted him 1/8 t h share.
- 18 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
27. Learned counsel Sri B.M.Siddappa,
appearing for Krishnamurthy contended that both
the courts had committed a serious illegality in
coming to the conclusion that the suit property
was a joint family property. He submitted that
though it was asserted that there was a decree of
partition granted in the year 1978, the decree
copies did not actually reflect this fact.
28. He submitted that the evidence on record
clearly indicate that the suit property was the
separate property of Venkatappa and the Trial
Court in the suit which had been filed for specific
performance clearly recorded a finding to this
effect and in the light of this finding, the decree of
partition granted could not be sustained.
29. As stated above, Chandrappa filed a suit
seeking for partition on the premise that the suit
property was a joint family property. This plea
- 19 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
was not opposed by his father and brothers and in
fact they conceded for a decree.
30. Krishnamurthy, who had impleaded as 8 t h
defendant, on the other hand contended as follows
in his written statement:
"5. It is true that the first defendant along
with defendants 2 to 5 had leased schedule
property in favour of this defendant. It is
true as alleged in para 7 that the
defendants 1 to 5 mortgaged the schedule
property in favour of this defendant for
Rs.30,000/- for the purpose of the
marriage of the daughter of 1 s t defendan t
and for affecting necessary repairs of
sched ule House and agreed to pay interest
at 18% p.a. and executed the registered
mortgage deed on 14/10/1987. And on
15/10/1987 defendant No.1 executed an
agreement for having given possession of
the schedule property and the schedule
property was delivered possession to this
defendant. It was agreed that since the
sched ule house has been given possession
that no interest on the mortgage amount
need be paid by defendants 1 to 5 and this
- 20 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
defendant need not pay any rent. Again o n
22/2/1988 defendants 1 to 5 agreed to sell
the schedule property in favour of this
defendants for Rs.1,21,101-00 and
executed an agreement of sale and have
received Rs.30,000/- as advance."
31. A reading of this written statement leaves
no room for doubt that the suit property was
indeed a joint family property. The fact that
Krishnamurthy admitted that he was inducted in to
the property by Venkatappa and four of his sons
and they also executed a registered Mortgage Deed
in respect of very same property in the year 1987,
proves the fact that the suit property was indeed a
joint family property.
32. The further fact that Krishnamurthy
admitted that Venkatappa and four of his sons
executed an agreement to sell the property would
also go to show that the property was the joint
family property. If the property was not the joint
family property, the question of the sons of
- 21 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
Venkatappa joining in the execution of Mortgage
Deed or the agreement of sale would not arise.
The fact that they were made parties to both
Mortgage Deed and agreement of sale is a clear
admission on the part of Krishnamurthy that the
suit property was the joint family property.
33. Infact, there is no whisper about the suit
property being the absolute property of
Venkatappa in the written statement. The plea in
fact is to the effect that the suit property belonged
to Venkatappa and his sons. In the light of this
plea itself, it is clear that Chandrappa being the
son of Venkatappa would be entitled to 1/8 t h share
having regard to the fact that he had 6 brothers
and a father i.e., eight sharers. The finding of the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court that
Chandrappa was entitled for 1/8 t h share, cannot
therefore, be found fault with.
- 22 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
34. Sri B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel
however contends that there is a clear observation
made in the suit that this grant of 1/8 t h share
would be subject to the result of O.S.No.25/1993,
which his client had filed for specific performance.
This argument cannot be accepted, firstly because,
the trial court in the body of its judgment has
stated that Krishnamurthy had failed to prove that
the suit property was the self acquired property of
Venkatappa. It is also stated that Venkatappa's
share in the suit for partition would be decided in
O.S.No.25/1993 i.e., the suit which had been filed
for specific performance. In fact this is the
specific observation of the Trial Court:
"The question of determining the share of
the defendant No.1 in the present suit does
not arise as it will be the sub ject matter of
the O.S.No.25/1993, wherein the rights and
liabilities of the 1st defendant are the
points and the matter in issue for
determination."
- 23 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
35. Since the Trial Court has merely observed
that the entitlement of share of Venkatappa would
be subject to judgment of O.S.No.25/1993, it
cannot be argued that the entitlement of
Chandrappa i.e., 1/8 t h share was subject to the
result of O.S.No.25/1993. This argument is
therefore rejected. It has been held by both the
Courts that Chandrappa was entitled to 1/8 t h share
in the suit property which cannot be found fault
with. No substantial question of law as such arises
in the Second Appeal preferred by Krishnamurthy.
36. As already stated above, Chanrappa has
filed an appeal challenging the decree of specific
performance, granted in respect of the entire suit
property. Admittedly, Chandrappa is not a
signatory to the agreement of sale and since
Chandrappa was held to be entitled to 1/8 t h share
in the suit property in the suit filed by him for
partition, the Trial Court was not justified in
- 24 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
granting a decree in respect of the entire property
in favour of Krishnamurthy.
37. The finding of the Trial Court on
additional Issue No.2 to the effect that the suit
property is the separate property of Venkatappa
cannot be sustained, since Krishnamurthy himself
did not put forth this plea in the suit that
Chandrappa had filed for partition.
38. As already observed above,
Krishnamurthy infact admitted that he was
inducted in to the property as a tenant by
Venkatappa and his four sons and they also
mortgaged the property in his favour. Since
Chandrappa by virtue of the fact that he was not a
signatory to the agreement of sale, the decree for
specific performance cannot cover or encompass
his 1/8 t h share. It will therefore have to be held
that Krishnamurthy would be entitled to a decree
of specific performance only in respect of the share
- 25 -
RSA No. 2199 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1812 of 2005
of Venkatappa and his sons share in the suit
property and he would not be entitled for a decree
in respect of the 1/8 t h share of Chandrappa.
39. The entitlement of Chandrappa in respect
of 1/8 t h share would have to be worked out in the
Final Decree proceedings and Krishnamurthy would
thus be entitled to a decree only in respect of
remaining 7/8 t h share and not the he entire suit
schedule property.
40. Resultantly Second Appeal filed by
Krishnamurthy is dismissed and the First Appeal
filed by Chandrappa is allowed to the extent stated
above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMV
