Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 25710 Kant
Judgement Date : 29 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43552
RSA No. 1464 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1464 OF 2018 (RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANDRAVATHI
D/O LATE SHIVAYYA NAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
MALEBETTU HOUSE,
KOYYUR VILLAGE & POST,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 243.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASANNA.V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. JAYARAJ SHETTY
S/O LATE GUMMANNA KADAMBA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
Digitally signed by 2. SMT. KASTURI
THEJASKUMAR N W/O JAYARAJ SHETTY,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
Court of
Karnataka
BOTH ARE R/AT:
MALEBETTU HOUSE,
KOYYUR VILLAGE AND POST,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 243.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908,
SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43552
RSA No. 1464 of 2018
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Prasanna.V.R., counsel for the appellant has appeared
in person.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the
plaintiffs seeking the relief of possession and mesne profits in
O.S.No.58/2016 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C,
Belthangdy. On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide
Judgment dated 21.11.2017 decreed the suit and directed the
defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit
property. The defendant assailed the Judgment of the Trial
Court before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court
vide Judgment dated 05.04.2018 dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the Judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the
defendant has filed the captioned appeal under Section 100 of
CPC on 09.07.2018.
3. Counsel Sri.Prasanna.V.R., fairly submits that the
Trial Court decree has been executed by filing an Execution
NC: 2024:KHC:43552
Petition and the plaintiffs have taken over the possession of the
suit schedule property. Counsel therefore, submits that a
suitable order may be passed.
The oral submission made by counsel for the appellant is
placed on record. It is pivotal to note that the suit is one for
possession and the possession of the suit schedule property has
been taken over by the plaintiffs by executing the Trial Court
decree. In view of the fact that the possession has already been
taken over by the plaintiffs, nothing remains for consideration
and there is no necessity to frame the substantial questions of
law at this stage.
4. Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal is
dismissed at the stage of admission.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!