Karnataka High Court
Kalleshappa S/O Poojar Shanthappa vs Anasuyamma D/O Late Kariganur Lingappa on 22 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15863
RFA No. 80 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2011 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. KALLESHAPPA,
S/O POOJAR SHANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
2. RAMACHANDRAPPA,
S/O POOJAR SHANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
3. BASAVARAJAPPA,
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
4. NAGARAJ
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KARIGANUR VILLAGE,
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577213.
Digitally
...APPELLANTS
signed by C (BY SRI P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE)
HONNUR SAB
Location: AND:
HIGH COURT
OF ANASUYAMMA,
KARNATAKA
D/O LATE KARIGANUR LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O KARIGANUR VILLAGE,
BASAVAPATNA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577213.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH K V AND
SRI K.R.LAKSHMANA RAO, ADVOCATES - (ABSENT))
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15863
RFA No. 80 of 2011
THIS RFA IS FILED U/O XLI, RULE 1, R/W, SEC. 96 OF
CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.11.2010 PASSED IN O.S.131/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The suit is filed for the relief of declaration and
possession in respect of two properties namely Survey
No.44/1A of Kariganur Village, Taluk Channagiri,
measuring 1 acre, 17½ guntas and also survey No.44/1B,
measuring 6 acres, 10½ guntas of Kariganur Village, Taluk
Channagiri. The suit is decreed against defendants No.1
to 4. The present appeal is filed by all the defendants.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has
produced 11 documents before this Court relating to the
subsequent developments that have taken place during the
pendency of this appeal. It is also his submission that the
plaintiff-respondent has lost title over the suit property as
the decree for specific performance is passed against the
NC: 2024:KHC:15863
respondent and said decree is executed pursuant to the
orders passed in Ex. Petition No.13/2015 on the file of the
Civil Judge, Channagiri to execute the decree in O.S.
No.38/2014.
3. The respondent though served, there is no
representation on behalf of the respondent.
4. Under these circumstances, the respondent is
not entitled to the relief of declaration and possession
which was granted by the Trial Court.
5. In view of the subsequent development namely
execution of the sale deed in the name of one B.P. Patil S/o
B.H. Patil pursuant to the Court decree, the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court will not survive.
Accordingly, the same are set-aside by taking into
consideration the subsequent development.
6. Hence, the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:15863
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.131/2009
(old No.63/2005) on the file of II Additional
District Judge, Davanagere is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CHS
