Karnataka High Court
Smt. Puttamma vs Sri. Suresh Hegde on 29 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43407
CRP No. 270 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 270 OF 2023 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O. LATE HUCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
2. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O. LATE HUCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
3. SRI. MUNIRAJU. H
S/O. LATE HUCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
4. SRI. MUNIRAJU @ APPI
S/O. LATE HUCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
5. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
D/O. LATE HUCHAPPA,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
signed by
SUMA
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
Location:
HIGH R/AT BEGURU VILLAGE,
COURT OF BEGURU HOBLI,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 068.
PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY
THEIR GPA HOLDER,
M/S. GREYBERRY REALTY
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CANARA ENCLAVE,
JIGANI ROAD, BANNERGHATTA,
BANGALORE-560 083,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AND
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43407
CRP No. 270 of 2023
MR. SANJEEV HULSANDRA,
S/O. PATTABHI KRISHNAMURTHY HULSANDRA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SURESH HEGDE
S/O. RAGHURAM HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT S.H. SHREYA,
NO.5, INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD,
DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071.
2. NARAYANAPPA
S/O. LATE DODDA ANAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. MUNIKRISHNA
S/O. LATE DODDA ANAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
4. SRINIVASA
S/O. LATE DODDA ANAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
5. AKKAYAMMA
D/O. LATE DODDA ANAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
6. SALAMMA
D/O. LATE CHIKKA ANAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
7. AKKAYAMMA
D/O. LATE CHIKKAANNAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
8. MANJUNATHA
S/O. LATE CHIKKA ANAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
9. MUNIYAPPA (BOMBAI)
S/O. LATE NADUPODU,
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43407
CRP No. 270 of 2023
10. SAKARI
S/O. LATE NADUPODU,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
11. LODAPPA
S/O. LATE NADA PODU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
12. AKKAYAMMA
D/O. CHIKKAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
13. CHIKKAKKAYAMMA
D/O. CHIKKAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
14. KENCHAMMA
D/O. CHIKKAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
15. LAKSHMAMMA
D/O. CHIKKAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
16. MANJULA
D/O. CHIKKAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
17. SMT. MARIRAMMA
W/O. SRI. CHIKKAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
18. SMT. HUCHAMMA
D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
19. SMT. KADIRAMMA
D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
20. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
21. SMT. MUNIRATHNA
D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:43407
CRP No. 270 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
22. SRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
23. SMT. CHALUVAMMA
W/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
24. SMT. NAGAMMA @ NAGAVENI
D/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
25. SRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
26. SMT. YELLAMMA
D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 26 ARE
R/AT BEGURU VILLAGE,
BEGURU HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 26 ARE DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.03.2023 PASSED IN
MISC.NO.82/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU
ALLOWING THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX
RULE 13 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.,
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:43407
CRP No. 270 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the order dated
07.03.2023 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (henceforth referred
to as 'Appellate Court') in Misc.No.82/2022 by which, the
petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of
CPC was allowed and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated
29.03.2014 passed by the Fast Track Court - II, Bangalore
Rural District, Bangalore (henceforth referred to as 'First
Appellate Court') in R.A.No.248/2011 was set aside.
2. The predecessor in title of the petitioners herein
filed a suit in O.S.No.1356/2008 before the II Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, for partition
and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule
property. The said suit was dismissed in terms of the judgment
and decree dated 30.06.2011. An appeal was filed by him in
R.A.No.248/2011 before the First Appellate Court. The First
Appellate Court noticed that respondent Nos.1 to 16 therein
were absent and notice to respondent No.17 was held to be
NC: 2023:KHC:43407
sufficient and consequently after hearing the parties concerned,
allowed the appeal in terms of the judgment and decree dated
29.03.2014. The respondent No.17 in R.A.No.248/2011
claiming that he was not served with the notice of the appeal,
filed Misc.No.82/2022 before the Appellate Court. The
Appellate Court noticed that respondent No.17 in
R.A.No.248/2011 was not served with the notice of the appeal
and therefore, allowed the miscellaneous petition and set aside
the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2014 passed in
R.A.No.248/2011.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the legal
representatives of the deceased - plaintiff/appellant in
R.A.No.248/2011 have filed this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that the decree in R.A.No.248/2011 was passed in the year
2014, while respondent No.17 therein has filed the present
miscellaneous petition in the year 2022 and he did not
satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the miscellaneous
petition. He further contends that the notice of the appeal was
served on respondent No.17 in R.A.No.248/2011 and that the
NC: 2023:KHC:43407
Appellate Court erroneously held that he was not served with
the notice. He further contends that a final decree proceedings
was initiated based on the judgment and decree passed in
R.A.No.248/2011 and by virtue of the belated miscellaneous
petition filed by respondent No.17, he has thrown a spanner
into the proceedings in FDP No.29/2014.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
No.17 in R.A.No.248/2011 submits that respondent No.17 was
not served with the notice of the appeal in R.A.No.248/2011.
He further submits that the predecessor of petitioners, who
filed R.A.No.248/2011 had expired on 02.11.2013 and
therefore, the judgment and decree passed therein on
29.03.2014 was inexecutable as it was passed in favour of a
dead person. He therefore, submits that the impugned order
passed by the Appellate Court allowing Misc.No.82/2022 does
not warrant interference in view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned
counsel for respondent No.17 in R.A.No.248/2011.
NC: 2023:KHC:43407
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the appeal filed in R.A.No.248/2011 was decreed
on 29.03.2014. The cause-title of the judgment and decree
shows that the notice to respondent No.17 was held to be
sufficient. However, respondent No.17 long thereafter i.e.,
after nearly 8 years, filed Misc.No.82/2022 contending that he
came to know of the decree passed in R.A.No.248/2011 after
he received a notice in FDP No.29/2014. The Appellate Court
proceeded to allow the miscellaneous petition and thereby set
aside the decree passed in March, 2014. Though the conduct
of respondent No.17 is unacceptable, yet this Court cannot
ignore the fact that the predecessor of the petitioners had
expired on 02.11.2013 and therefore, it was incumbent upon
the petitioners to be impleaded in R.A.No.248/2011. Since that
is not done, the decree passed on 29.03.2014 is non-est in the
eyes of law.
8. Therefore, without going into the merits of the
contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it
is appropriate to dispose off this petition by directing the First
Appellate Court to dispose off the appeal in R.A.No.248/2011
as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six
NC: 2023:KHC:43407
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
All contentions are left open.
9. This petition is disposed off on the above terms.
10. In view of disposal of this petition, pending I.As., if
any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR
