Karnataka High Court
Shivanna vs Gurushanthappa on 1 April, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13613
RSA No. 2671 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2671 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVANNA,
S/O LATE REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 117
DIED ON 7/8/2007
REPRESENTED BY LRs
1(a) SMT MALLAMMA,
W/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED 50 YEARS
1(b) REVANNA
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED 40 YEARS
1(c) GURULINGAIAH,
Digitally signed by S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
GEETHAKUMARI
AGED 30 YEARS
PARLATTAYA S
Location: High 1(d) SHIVAKUMARAIAH,
Court of Karnataka S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED 25 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O MALLENAHALLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 117.
...APPELLANTS
[BY SRI. M B CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE (PH)]
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13613
RSA No. 2671 of 2007
AND:
1. GURUSHANTHAPPA
S/O LATE REVANNA,
AGED 72 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
1(a) SMT. GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE GURUSHANTHAPPA,
AGED 80 YEARS,
1(b) SRI SHAMBULINGAIAH,
S/O LATE GURUSHANTHAPPA,
AGED 55 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/A NO.3/179,
CHENNAYYANA AGRAHARA,
BELAGANDANAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
NAGANDANAHALLI POST,
DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT - 635 114.
1(c) SRI G. NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE GURUSHANTHAPPA,
R/A NO.518, 1ST CROSS,
HANUMANTHANAGARA,
BEHIND IPP HOSPITAL,
KANAKAPURA TOWN,
KANAKAPURA - 562 117.
1(d) SRI G. MADESH & G. MAHADEVAIAH,
S/O LATE GURUSHANTHAPPA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
R/O MALLENAHALLI,
GUTHALAHUNISE P.O.
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,L
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
1(e) SRI G. PUTTARAJU,
S/O LATE GURUSHANTHAPPA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
R/A NO.3/179,
CHENNAYYANA AGRAHARA,
BELOGANDANAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
NAGANDANAHALLI POST,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:13613
RSA No. 2671 of 2007
DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT - 635 114.
2. CHANDRAPPA
(HOTEL CHANDRAPPA),
S/O LATE REVANNA,
AGED 67 YEARS,
R/O MALLENAHALLI
POST: YENNAGARA,
HOBLI: JIGANI, TALUK: ANEKAL,
DISTRICT: BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(d) (PH);
SRI C.V. KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (a-c & e) (PH)]
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
& DECREE DATED 07.08.2007 PASSED IN R.A.NO.02/2001 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2000 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.67/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN), &
JMFC., RAMANAGARA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:13613
RSA No. 2671 of 2007
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 07.08.2007
passed by Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in
R.A.no.02/2001, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri M.B.Chandra Chooda, learned counsel for
defendant-appellant submitted, suit was filed for partition of 2
Acres and 18 Guntas of land in Sy.no.109 and 38 Guntas of
land in Sy.no.177 situated in Bullagere Village, Maralavadi
Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Bengaluru. It was submitted, said
lands were Inam lands granted to Sri Basaveshwara Temple as
per Ex.D.3 passed by Land Tribunal. It was submitted, validity
of order of grant was subject matter of W.P.no.20612/1993
disposed of on 10.07.2000 (Ex.D.43), wherein order passed by
Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights was set-aside and
matter remitted back to Tribunal, where matter was still
pending. It was submitted, since suit properties as inam lands
would be available for partition only after grant, decree for
partition passed by first appellate Court would have no legs to
stand and therefore, seeks for allowing appeal.
3. On other hand, Sri V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel
for respondent no.1(d) and Sri V.Krishnan, learned counsel for
NC: 2025:KHC:13613
respondents no.1(a to c and e) opposed appeal by relying on
various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagesh Bisto
Desai v. Khando Tirmal Desai reported in (1982) 2 SCC 79,
Kalgonda Babgonda Patil v. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil and
Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1042, and decisions of this
Court in Narayanappa and Ors. v.Doddapattabhi and Ors.
(RFA no.1420/2012 D.D. on 10.03.2016), Rashid Hamid
and Ors. v. Allabax and Ors. (RFA no.7140/2008 D.D. on
25.01.2024).
4. It was submitted, when suit was filed in year 1989,
suit properties were granted by land tribunal by order dated
05.11.1986. Therefore, suit was tenable. It was submitted,
merely on ground that order of grant was subsequently set
aside and matter was remitted back, cause of action accrued
cannot be set to have been lost. It was submitted, rights of
parties for share could be decided subject to grant of land by
Tribunal by referring to decision of this Court in RSA
no.4017/2012 decided on 22.04.2022.
5. Heard learned counsel, perused judgment and
decree and records.
NC: 2025:KHC:13613
6. On perusal of pleadings-Exhibits D.3 and D.43, it
would appear that suit properties were Inam lands granted by
Land Tribunal. But, Ex.D.3 passed by Land Tribunal has been
set-aside by this Court in judgment marked at Ex.D.43 and
matter was remitted back. Said event would eclipse cause of
action accrued for filing suit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagesh
Bisto Desai v. Khando Tirmal Desai reported in (1982) 2
SCC 79, Anant Kibe & Ors. v. Purushottam Rao & Ors.
reported in AIR 1984 SC 1121 and Shivappa
Tammannappa Karaban v. Parasappa Hanamappa
Kuraban & Ors. reported in 1994 AIR SC W 5031 has held
Inam lands would be impartible prior to grant. Therefore,
judgment and decree by first appellate Court would require to
be held ineffective, unless there is order of grant passed.
7. With said observations and reserving liberty to
parties to seek for revival of this appeal in case of grant, appeal
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
NC: 2025:KHC:13613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
[SHIVANNA AND OTHERS VS. GURUSHANTHAPPA AND ANOTHER]
03.04.2025
(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO'
Appeal was disposed of on 01.04.2025. Some time after
disposal, learned counsel for respondents mentioned that an
order for interim protection of subject matter requires to be
passed. Therefore, matter is listed for 'being spoken to'.
Opposing request for grant of any interim protection,
learned counsel for appellants submitted that respondents
herein, have in fact suffered a decree of permanent injunction
passed in O.S.no.465/1989 confirmed in R.A.no.30/1999 and
RSA no.965/2003 disposed of on 11.10.2004.
Learned counsel for respondents would further submit
that since names of appellants are mentioned in revenue
records in respect of subject lands, there is possibility of
alienation, which shall likely result in multiplicity of
proceedings.
Admittedly, claim for re-grant of land in question is
pending before Land Tribunal in view of vesting of lands.
In view of above, no further orders require to be passed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
