Karnataka High Court
Girijamma D/O. Late A. Thimmappa vs Sejappa S/O. Surappa on 27 May, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17729
CRP No. 111 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 111 OF 2018 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. GIRIJAMMA
D/O. LATE A. THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
2. SANNA THIMMAPPA,
S/O. LATE A. THIMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
3. VENKATESHAPPA,
S/O. LATE A. THIMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
4. YALLAMMA,
D/O. LATE A. THIMAPPA,
Digitally signed
by AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH
5. GOWRAMMA,
COURT OF D/O. LATE A. THIMMAPPA,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT VADDARA SIDDAVVANAHALLY,
HIREGUNTANUR HOBLI,
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17729
CRP No. 111 of 2018
AND:
1. SEJAPPA,
S/O. SURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST.
2. GANGAMMA,
W/O. SEJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3. LINGARAJU,
S/O. SEJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
4. SHEELA,
D/O. SEJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
5. GADRIPALA,
S/O. SEJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
6. HANUMAKKA,
W/O. LATE GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
7. GANGAMMA,
D/O. LATE GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
8. GEETHAMMA,
D/O. LATE GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17729
CRP No. 111 of 2018
9. G. SURESH
S/O. LATE GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9 ARE
R/AT D. MADAKARIPURA,
BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI,
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
10. P. THIMMESWAMY,
S/O. T. M. PARAMESWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT SIRIGERE,
BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2017 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.403/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) Call for the records;
b) Set-aside the order dated:- 7-3-2017 being
passed by the III Addl.Civil Judge, Chitradurga,
NC: 2024:KHC:17729
on the file of O.S.No.403/2015 vide Annexure-A
in the interest of justice and equity.
c) And to pass such other order or direction/s as
deem fit under the facts and circumstances of
the case, to meet the ends of justice.
2. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.403/2015
before the III Additional Civil Judge at Chithradurga
seeking for the following reliefs:
a) To declare that, the plaintiffs is the absolute
owner and in peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property by virtue of the
sale deed dated 27/5/1959 executed in favour of
A.Thimmappa, by his vendor Sanna Thimmappa,
b) To grant permanent injunction, restraining the
defendants their agent,s servants, relatives or
any body else on their behalf from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property.
c) The alleged sale deed dt:31/10/2013 executed
by the defendant No.1 to 5 and deceased
Gangappa and his wife at Chitradurga in favour
of defendant No.10 is fraudulent of suit schedule
property, is null and void and same is not
binding the plaintiffs.
d) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court
deems fit to grant under the circumstances of
the above case.
3. In the said suit the issue of maintainability has been
taken up and the suit came to be dismissed as not
maintainable on account of the plaintiffs therein, who
were the petitioners herein, not having filed the suit
NC: 2024:KHC:17729
within 6 months as directed vide Order dated
13.08.1998 in RSA No.654/1996, challenging the
same the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit
in O.S.No.403/2015 has been filed on a different
cause of action for a different relief then that
contemplated in order dated 13.08.1998 in RSA
No.654/1996 and as such the said order would not
be applicable.
5. RSA No.654/1996 arose out of the order dated
25.03.1996 passed in R.A No.59/1999 which in turn
arose out of judgment and decree in the suit in
O.S.No.397/1991 dated 08.06.1995. The aforesaid
suit in O.S.No.397/1991 was decreed and injunction
granted by the Trial Court which was confirmed by
the Appellate Court. In the RSA filed by the
defendants therein, who were the petitioners herein,
came to be dismissed, however, liberty was granted
to the defendants to agitate their rights, if any, by
NC: 2024:KHC:17729
establishing their ownership on the basis of the
documents claimed by them which suit was to be
filed within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a judgment copy.
6. The said judgment having attained finality, the suit in
O.S No.403/2015 was filed on 11.08.2015 seeking
for the aforesaid relief. In essence the relief which
have been sought for in O.S. No.403/2015 is for
declaration of title of the petitioners in pursuance of
the sale deed dated 27.05.1959 and for grant of
permanent injunction against the defendants. The
additional relief which has been sought for is setting
aside the sale deed dated 31.10.2013 executed by
defendant Nos.1 to 5 herein, who were the plaintiffs
in O.S. No.397/1991.
7. Though the contention of Sri.Natarajan, learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the relief sought for
is different from that which is contemplated in the
order dated 13.08.1998, I am unable to agree with
NC: 2024:KHC:17729
the same, in as much as, by the said order this Court
had granted liberty to petitioners to establish his title
by filing an appropriate suit and then seek for
possession.
8. In O.S.No.403/2015 relief of declaration of title is
sought for, with reference to the very same sale
deed dated 27.05.1959 and the consequential reliefs
thereto have been sought for and the additional relief
of declaration of the sale deed dated 31.10.2013 to
be not binding on the plaintiffs. Without the relief of
declaration in respect of sale deed dated 27.05.1959
being granted the other reliefs cannot be granted.
9. This Court in RSA No.654/1996 granted liberty and
extended a benefit to the petitioners to file a suit
within six months in respect of the sale deed of the
year 1959 which was a indulgence extended by this
Court, extending the period of limitation by a period
of six months. The said indulgence not having been
availed of by the petitioner, no suit having been filed
NC: 2024:KHC:17729
within 6 months from the date of the order dated
13.08.1998, but the present suit having been filed on
11.08.2015, the period of limitation cannot be sought
to be extended in such a manner.
10. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court.
11. The above petition stands dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RMS/KBM
