Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jayamma vs Sri. Doddaiah on 26 July, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29472
RSA No. 1198 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1198 OF 2023 (DEC/PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.138,
3RD MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
K P NAGAR, MYSURU ROAD,
BENGALURU-560026.
2. SMT GEETHA
D/O DODDAIAH,
W/O H MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.100/2,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
GOVINDAPPA COMPOUND,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M BENGALURU-560090.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. SMT SUDHA
KARNATAKA D/O DODDAIAH,
W/O RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.136,
4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
KASTURBA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560026.
4. SMT INDIRA
D/O DODDAIAH,
W/O PUTTARAJU,,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29472
RSA No. 1198 of 2023
R/AT NO.136,
4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
KASTURBA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560026
5. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
D/O DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.136,
4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
KASTURBA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560026
6. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.138,
3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
K P NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560029.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. DODDAIAH,
S/O BIRAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. SRI PARTHA
S/O LATE PUTTASIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKENAHALLI,
ANJANAPURA POST,
KYLANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159.
2. SMT VENKATAMMA
W/O KADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKENAHALLI,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29472
RSA No. 1198 of 2023
ANJANAPURA POST,
KYLANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159.
3. SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O JAYARAMAIAH,
MAJOR,,
R/AT CHANNAMANAHALLI,,
KYLANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159.
SMT CHOWDAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
4. SMT HONNAMMA
D/O HONNAIAH AND CHOWDAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
5. SRI KEMPARAJ
S/O HONNAIAH AND CHOWDAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
THE RESPONDENT No.4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT BAREDODDI,
BIDADI HOBLI AND POST,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562109.
SMT GOWRAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
6. SRI RUDRAPPA
S/O GOWRAMMA,
MAJOR,
7. SRI DHANANJAYA
S/O KRISHNAPPA AND GOWRAMMA,
MAJOR,
8. SUKANYA
D/O KRISHNAPPA AND GOWRAMMA,
MAJOR,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29472
RSA No. 1198 of 2023
THE RESPONDENT No.6 TO 8 ARE
R/AT KUMBAPURA VILLAGE,
IJOOR POST,
KYLANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159.
SMT JAYAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
9. SRI MAHESHA
S/O CHIKKANNA AND JAYAMMA,
MAJOR,
10. SRI PRAKASHA
S/O CHIKKANNA AND JAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
11. PUSHPALATHA
D/O CHIKKANNA AND JAYAMMA,
MAJOR,
THE RESPONDENT No.9 TO 11 ARE
R/AT NO.5, 4TH CROSS,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
SANJIVININAGAR,
MUDALAPALYA,
BENGALURU-560072.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2023
PASSED IN R.A No. 16/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:29472
RSA No. 1198 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Though, this Court
granted time twice to submit regarding non-inclusion of other
family properties, till date, not made any submission regarding
non-inclusion of the properties. The judgment of the Trial
Court is clear with regard to the filing of the suits by the
plaintiff one or the other against the purchasers and same is
noted in paragraphs 15, 16, 18 and 19 of the judgment stating
that the plaintiff is having an habit of filing the suits and not
included the property and in respect of some of the other
properties also, filed other suits. Having taken note of the
reasoning given by the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court
also confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
coming to the conclusion that the suit is filed with an intention
to trouble the purchasers and to extract the money contending
that there was no division and sale in favour of defendant
Nos.2 to 4 was not for legal necessities. When such concurrent
finding is given by both the Courts with regard to seeking of the
relief of declaration, there are no grounds to admit and frame
the substantial questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:29472
2. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
