Karnataka High Court
Smt. R. Yashoda vs Sri H.R. Gundappaji Since Dead By ... on 6 January, 2023
Bench: N S Gowda
-1-
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 399 OF 2014 (DEC)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2015
IN RFA NO.399/2014
BETWEEN:
SMT. R. YASHODA
W/O NARAYANAPPA,
62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.16, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
H.V.R. LAYOUT,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 013
GPA HOLDER NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O KEMPERAIAH
NO.1927/A, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS
PRASHANTH NAGAR
BANGALORE - 79
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.L.MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by BELUR AND:
RANGADHAMA
NANDINI
Location: HIGH SRI H.R. GUNDAPPAJI
COURT OF SINCE DEAD BY LRS
KARNATAKA
-2-
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
1. K.P.SATHYABHAMA
W/O LATE GUNDAPPAJI
85 YEARS,
2. SRI.H.G.MITHUN
S/O LATE GUNDAPPAJI
50 YEARS
PLAINTIFF NOS.1 & 2 ARE
R/OF. MAVNOOR VILLAGE
HUNASAVLLI POST
OPP. HOLETHIMMANAHALLI
ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 213
3. SMT.H.G.SINTHA,
D/O. LATE H.R.GUNDAPPAJI
W/O H.M.ARUNKUMAR,
62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.841, 9TH CROSS,
10TH MAIN, I.T.I. LAYOUT,
MALLATHALLI, NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE - 560 073
4. SMT.H.G.IMPA
D/O LATE H.G.GUNDAPPAJI
W/O KIRAN,
45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.898, 9TH A CROSS,
11TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 037
5. SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGE:70 YEARS
SRI.LINGOJIRAO,
SINCE DEAD, BY LRS
6. SMT.A.NIRMALABAI
W/O LATE LINGOJI RAO,
-3-
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
AGED 69 YEARS
7. SMT.L.GAYATHRI,
D/O LATE LINGOJI RAO
AGE:49 YEARS
8. SRI.L.KIRAN RAO,
S/O LATE LINGOJIRAO,
47 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.19/2
(SY.NO.66/1A2), 6TH MAIN
1 'B' CROSS, HVR LAYOUT
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 013
9. SRI.DHANAKOTI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
10. SRI.BABUSHAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS NOS.5 TO 10
ARE R/AT SY.NO.66/1A2
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 011.
11. SRI LAKSHMANA
R/AT NO.70, H.V.R.LAYOUT,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560013
SMT.REVAMMA
W/O SIDDALINGAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED,
BY HER L.RS.
-4-
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
12. SRI PRAKASH
S/O SIDDALINGAIAH,
13. SMT. SUMANGALA
D/O. SIDDALINGAIAH
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.2472,
7TH B MAIN, II STAGE,
R.P.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 014
14. SMT.ANASUYA
W/O DHANAKOTI
R/AT SY.NO.66/1A2,
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BANALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 011
15. SRI.G.RAMACHANDRA
S/O H.GANGAPPA,
69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.111, JUGANAHALLI,
II BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 003
16. SMT.BHANUMATHI
W/O S.MANJU
AGE:32 YEARS
R/O NO.88, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
RPC LAYOUT, CHANDRALAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 040
AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.09.2016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO 8
SRI.SEETHARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R10
SRI.H.SUNIL KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R-16
-5-
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
VIDE ORDER DATED 16.01.2015 NOTICE TO R5, R9 TO R11 &
R14 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 10.12.2013
PASSED IN O.S.NO.6075/1988 ON THE FILE OF XLI-ADDL.
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND INJUNCTION.
IN RFA NO.196/2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI.BABUSHA
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED
BY LR'S
1. SARASWATHI,
W/O LATE SRI BABUSHA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO.17, KHANESHMARI NO.1136,
SY.NO.66/1A2,
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHAWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
2. BHUSHAN SHA. B,
S/O LATE SRI BABUSHA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT:
NO.163, 2ND CROSS,
MUNESHWARA LAYOUT,
BHARATHANAGAR II STAGE, BADARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 091.
3. HARISHA B,
S/O LATE SRI BABUSHA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT:
NO.17, KHANESHMARI NO.1136,
SY.NO.66/1A2,
-6-
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHAWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
4. PRAKASHA.B.
S/O LATE SRI.BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.17, KHANESHMARI NO.1136
SY. NO.66/1A2
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
5. LATHA B.
D/O LATE SRI.BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 37 EARS
NO.17, KHANESHMARI NO.1136
SY. NO. 66/1A2
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
6. GEETHAR.B
D/O LATE SRI.BABUSHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
DOOR NO.5/1, 21ST CROSS
MARIYAPPAN PALYA
K.P.AGRAHARA
BANGALORE - 560 023
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI H.R. GUNDAPPAJI
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
-7-
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
1. SMT.K.P.SATHYABHAMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O LATE SRI. GUNDAPPAJI
2. SRI.H.G.MITHUN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE GUNDAPPAJI
PLAINTIFF NOS.1 & 2 ARE
RESIDENT OF MAVNOOR VILLAGE
HUNASAVLLI POST
OPP. HOLETHIMMANAHALLI
ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
3. SMT.H.G.SMITHA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
D/O. LATE SRI.H.R.GUNDAPPAJI
W/O H.M.ARUNKUMAR,
R/AT NO.41, 9TH CROSS,
10TH MAIN, I.T.I. LAYOUT,
MALLATHALLI, NAGARABHAVI,
BANGALORE
4. SMT.H.G.IMPHA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI.GUNDAPPAJI
W/O SRI.KIRAN
R/AT NO.898, 9TH 'A' CROSS,
11TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BANGALORE
5. SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
RESIDING AT:
SY.NO.66/1A2
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
-8-
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
SRI.LINGOJI RAO
SINCE DEAD, BY LR's
6. SMT.A.NIRMALA BAI
AGE:MAJOR
W/O LATE SRI.LINGOJI RAO,
7. SMT.L.GAYATHRI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI.LINGOJI RAO
8. SRI.L.KIRAN RAO,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI.LINGOJI RAO
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.19/2, SY.NO.66/1A2, 6TH MAIN
1 'B' CROSS, HVR LAYOUT
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE
9. SRI.DHANAKOTI
AGE:MAJOR
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
RESIDING AT:
SY.NO.66/1A2
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
10. SRI LAKSHMANA
AGE: MAJOR
RESIDING AT:
AT NO.70, H.V.R.LAYOUT,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE
SMT.REVAMMA
W/O LATE SRI.SIDDALINGAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED, BY HER L.RS.
-9-
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
11. SRI PRAKASH
AGE:MAJOR
S/O LATE SRI.SIDDALINGAIAH
12. SMT. SUMANGALA
AGE: MAJOR
D/O. LATE SRI.SIDDALINGAIAH
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:
NO.2472, 7TH 'B' MAIN, II STAGE,
R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE
13. SMT.ANASUYA
AGE:MAJOR
W/O DHANAKOTI
RESIDING AT:NO.66/1A2,
SANEGURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BANALORE NORTH TALUK
14. SMT.R.YASHODA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
W/O SRI.NARAYANAPPA
RESIDING AT:
NO.16, 6TH MAIN ROAD
H.V.R. LAYOUT
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE
15. SRI.G.RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SRI.H.GANGAPPA,
RESIDING AT:
NO.111, JUGANAHALLI,
II BLOCK, RAJAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE
16. SMT.BHANUMATHI
W/O SRI.S.MANJU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
- 10 -
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
R/O NO.88, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
BCC LAYOUT, CHANDRALAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 040
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NAVED AHMED ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR H. ADVOCATE FOR R16
VIDE ORDER DATED 04.11.2015, NOTICE TO R5, R9, R10 &
R13 ARE DISPENSED WITH
R11, R12, R14 & R15 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED
THIS RFA FILED U/SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.6075/1988 ON THE FILE OF XLI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
H.R.Gundappaji - the original plaintiff instituted a suit in
O.S. No.6075/1988 seeking for a declaration that he was the
absolute owner of 'A' schedule property and for issuing a
direction to defendant Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9 to demolish the
structures put up on the 'A' schedule property and to deliver
vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff.
2. It was also prayed that the sale deed dated 03.07.2004
executed by Sri G. Ramachandra (defendant No.9) in favour of
- 11 -
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
Smt R. Yashoda (defendant No.8) was a sham transaction and
not binding on the plaintiff.
3. A prayer was also made to direct defendant Nos. 3, 4 and
7 to demolish the structures put up by them in the 'B' schedule
property and for a consequential decree of injunction to restrain
the 5th defendant from putting up any construction in the
vacant space existing in the 'A' schedule property shown as
"ABHG" in Annexure - 'C' was also sought for.
4. On contest, the suit filed by H R Gundappaji was decreed
and he was declared to be the owner of the suit property. The
defendants were also restrained from interfering with the
peaceful possession of H R Gundappaji over the 'A' schedule
property. Defendant No.5 was also restrained from putting up
any construction in the vacant space existing in 'A' schedule
property shown as "ABHG" in Annexure - 'C'.
5. Defendants 1 to 9 were also directed to demolish the
illegal and unauthorised structures put up by them in 'A' and 'B'
schedule properties respectively within three months failing
- 12 -
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
which the plaintiff was entitled to seek for demolition at the
cost of defendants.
6. Lastly, the sale deed dated 3.7.2004 executed by
G Ramachandra (defendant No.9) in favour of R.Yashoda
(defendant No.8) was declared to be a sham transaction and
not binding on the plaintiff.
7. As against the decree, present two appeals was preferred
one by R.Yashoda (defendant No.8) and the other by
Babushah (defendant No.4).
8. During the pendency of these appeals, a compromise was
entered into between the parties and the suit was disposed of
in terms of the compromise petition.
9. As against the acceptance of the compromise petition,
two review petitions came to be filed by Bhanumathi, who
claimed to have purchased the property from Shetty Gowda,
who in turn was stated to be the GPA holder of H R Gundappaji.
These review petitions were allowed-in-part and the impugned
decree was set-aside and the appeals were restored to file for
the limited/restricted purpose of considering the
- 13 -
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
contentions/claims of the review petitioner i.e., Bhanumathi
and for hearing her and for disposal of the appeal in accordance
with law. It was made clear that the compromise decree which
had been accepted was being confirmed and were not being
interfered with in the present review petitions.
10. As a consequence of this order, this appeal is posted for
hearing and the same is heard.
11. It is not in dispute that Bhanumathi claims to have
purchased the property under a sale deed executed in her
favour by Shetty Gowda. It is also admitted that Shetty Gowda
had been empowered by way of a GPA to deal with the property
by H R Gundappaji and as a consequence, had a right to
convey the property. Bhanumathi therefore contends that she
had acquired a title and the compromise could not have been
entered into in respect of her property. She also contends that
the compromise petition was not binding on her in any way.
12. As stated above, it is an admitted case by Bhanumathi
that she has purchased the property during the pendency of
the appeal. Thus, essentially, Bhanumathi would be pendente
- 14 -
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
lite purchaser and in law would be bound by the decree that
would be ultimately passed in the appeal. However, since the
appeal has been disposed of on the compromise decree and not
on merits, Bhanumathi may in the strict sense of the terms
contend that she would not be not bound by the terms of the
compromise and that she would be entitled to seek for
adjudication of her rights, if any, under the sale deed by
instituting an appropriate suit.
13. Bhanumathi by virtue of not being a party to the suit and
the appeal would have no right to object or come in the way of
the parties to the suit to enter into a compromise.
Consequently, Bhanumathi would have no right of audience in
this appeal and the appeal was rightly disposed of on the basis
of the terms entered into between the parties in the
compromise petition.
14. It is made clear that Bhanumathi would be entitled to
seek for instituting an appropriate suit, if the law so permits
and would be entitled to seek for adjudication of the rights on
the basis of the sale deed executed in her favour.
- 15 -
RFA No. 399 of 2014
C/W RFA No. 196 of 2015
15. Subject to the above and affirming the acceptance of the
compromise petition, the appeals are disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
BRN
