Karnataka High Court
Smt Bhagyamma vs Smt Sujathamma on 7 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3171 OF 2025 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 969 OF 2025
IN MFA No.3171 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
GAYATHRI K
W/O KITTA NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING IN BINTRAVALLI
REVENUE QUARTERS
BALAGADI VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 126
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. YASHAS K, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
ANJALI M
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
W/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDENT OF JANATHA COLONY
SHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH
JALAHALLI WEST
BENGALURU-560 015
2. SRI. SRINIVASA M.T
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDENT OF JANATHA COLONY
SHETTIHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST
BENGALURU-560 015
3. SMT. PADMA @ PADMAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.204, JANATHA COLONY
NEAR NARASIMHA TEMPLE
SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU-560 015
4. SRI. VENKATESH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO. 192, RAJABEEDI
DODDABOMMSANDRA
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU-560 097
5. SRI. RAMACHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDENT OF SETTIHALLI
BENGALURU NORTH, JALAHALLI WEST
BENGALURU-560 015
6. SMT. SUJATHAMMA
D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAIAH
W/O ASHEATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT. MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD
NEAR AMARAPURAM BUS STOP
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
MADAKASIRA TALUK
ANANTHPURAM DISTRICT
7. SMT. LOKAMMA
W/O LATE RAMALINGA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT GOLLAPALLI, PENUGONDA TALUK
ANANTHPURA DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 110
8. SMT. NANDINI
D/O LATE RAMALINGA
W/O PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
9. GEETHA
D/O LATE RAMALINGA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 8 AND 9 ARE
R/AT NO. 8-1-22, BTP ROAD
RAYADURGAM, RAYADURGAM TALUK
ANANTHPURA DISTRICT-515 865
10 . PRABHAKAR
S/O LATE NARSIMHULU
W/O KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT. NO. 45, NANDAGOKULA
8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK
3RD STAGE, SG HALLI
BASAVESHWARANGARA
BENGALUR-560 079
11 . SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHULU
W/O KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT. NO.45, NANDAGOKULA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK
3RD STAGE, SG HALLI
BASAVESHWARANGARA
BENGALUR-560 079
12 . SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE NARASIMHULU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKASANDRA, BEHIND TO
SRI. M. VISHWESHWARAIAH
SCHOOL, SHETTIHALLI
BENGALURU-560 057
13 . SRI. NAGARAJA
S/O LATE NARASIMHULU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD
NEAR AMARAPURAM BUS STOP
MADAKASIRA TALUK
ANANTHPURAM DISTRICT-515 301
14 . SMT. GANGAMMA
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA
W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT ANANTHAPURA COURT ROAD
ANANTHAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 001
15 . VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT BUKKAPATNA FORT
NEAR YSR REDDY STATUE
DHARMAVARAM TALUK
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 001
16 . RAMAKRISHNAPPA
W/O LATE YASHODAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
17 . SMT. PAVITHRA
D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
18 . SMT. CHANDRIKA
D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO. 16, 17 AND 18
ARE R/AT BANDARLAHALLI
THONDEBHAVI HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA-561 211
19 . SMT. NAGARTHNA
D/O LATE ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
20 . SMT. KANTHAMMA
W/O LATE VENU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
21 . TEJASHWINI
W/O LATE VENU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
22 . THEJA
S/O LATE VENU
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO. 19 TO 22 ARE
R/AT GOLLAPALLI, PENUGONDA TALUK
ANANTHPURA DISTIRCT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 110
23 . SRI. SRIRAMULU
S/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO. 11-1-372
ARAVINDANAGARA
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
ANANTHPURA TOWN
ANDRAPRADESH-515 001
24 . SRI. ASHWATHANARAYANA
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT, NO.44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE
KURUBARAHALLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL -561 203
25 . RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.16, 1ST FLOOR
ABOVE KARUNYA
HI-TECH DIAGNOSTIC CENTER
6TH CROSS, SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD
SHETTIHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST POST
BENGALURU 560 015
26 . SMT. PARVATHAMMA
D/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA
W/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT UJINI, HOSAHALLI, HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL-561 203
27 . SMT. RAMAKKA
D/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA
W/O KRISHNMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT GUNJURU, SS GHATI
THUBAGERE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL-561 203
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
28 . SMT. SUVARNAMMA
D/O LATE RAMASWAMY GOWDA
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT YAKARANAHALLI, HOSALLI HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL-561 203
29 . SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
BEHIND THRIVENI SCHOOL
PENUGONDA TOWN AND TALUK
ANANTHPURA DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 110
30 . SMT. RAMAKKA
D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
W/O ASWATHNARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT, NO. 44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE
KURUBARAHALLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL-561 203
31 . SMT. RANI
D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
W/O RAMACHANDRA
C/O ASWATHNARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT, NO. 44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE
KURUBARAHALLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL-561 203
32 . SRI. ADINARAYANA
S/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
33 . SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O ADINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
34 . SMT. PADMA
D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 27 TO 29 ARE
R/AT BEHIND THRIVENI SCHOOL
PENUGONDA TOWN AND TALUK
ANANTHPURA DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH 515 110
35 . SMT. ANURADHA
D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. M-7, POLICE QUARTOS
OLD BUILDING, AUDUGODI
BENGALURU-560 030
36 . SMT. GANGADEVI
W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
37 . SMT. ARUNA
D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
38 . SMT. ANITHA
D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
39 . SRI. MARUTHI
S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
40 . SRI. BALAJI
D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.36 TO 40
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
ALL RESIDING AT ANANTHPURAM
COURT ROAD
ANANTHPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT
ANANTHPURA-515 001
41 . SMT. JYOTHI
W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
42 . SRI. RAJU
S/O LATE NANJIVULU @
NANJINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
43 . SMT. SWEETY
D/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
44 . SMT. HAPPY
W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
45 . SMT. LOVELY
W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 41 TO 45 ARE
RESIDENT OF 4-A, FORTUNE GREEN
APARTMENT, 5TH LANE
KRISHNANAGARA
GUNTOOR TALUK AND DISTRICT
46 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER-1, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD (KIADB)
OFFICER AT 39, BHARATH SCOUTS
AND GUIDES BUILDING
SHANTHI GRUHA, 4TH FLOOR
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG , ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DT.28.01.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.X IN
O.S.NO.460/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING IA NO.X FILED U/O.39
RULE 4 OF CPC.
IN MFA No.969 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
W/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDENT OF JANATHA COLONY
SHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH
JALAHALLI WEST
BENGALURU-560 015
2. SRI. SRINIVASA M.T
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDENT OF JANATHA COLONY
SHETTIHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST
BENGALURU-560 015
3. SMT. PADMA @ PADMAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
W/O VENKATESH
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.204, JANATHA COLONY
NEAR NARASIMHA TEMPLE
SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU-560 015
4. SRI. VENKATESH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO. 192, RAJABEEDI
DODDABOMMSANDRA
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU-560 097
5. SRI. RAMACHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDENT OF SETTIHALLI
BENGALURU NORTH, JALAHALLI WEST
BENGALURU-560 015
APPELLANTS NO.1, 3, 4 AND 5 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPA HOLDER
APPELLANT NO.2
SRI. SRINIVASA M.T
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE)
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT. SUJATHAMMA
D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAIAH
W/O ASHEATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT. MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD
NEAR AMARAPURAM BUS STOP
MADAKASIRA TALUK
ANANTHPURAM DISTRICT
2. SMT. LOKAMMA
W/O LATE RAMALINGA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT GOLLAPALLI, PENUGONDA TALUK
ANANTHPURA DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 110
3. SMT. NANDINI
D/O LATE RAMALINGA
W/O PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
4. GEETHA
D/O LATE RAMALINGA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT NO. 8-1-22, BTP ROAD
RAYADURGAM, RAYADURGAM TALUK
ANANTHPURA DISTRICT-515 865
5. PRABHAKAR
S/O LATE NARSIMHULU
W/O KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT. NO. 45, NANDAGOKULA
8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK
3RD STAGE, SG HALLI
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
BASAVESHWARANGARA
BENGALUR-560 079
6. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHULU
W/O KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT. NO.45, NANDAGOKULA
8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK
3RD STAGE, SG HALLI
BASAVESHWARANGARA
BENGALUR-560 079
7. SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE NARASIMHULU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKASANDRA, BEHIND TO
SRI. M. VISHWESHWARAIAH
SCHOOL, SHETTIHALLI
BENGALURU-560 057
8. SRI. NAGARAJA
S/O LATE NARASIMHULU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD
NEAR AMARAPURAM BUS STOP
MADAKASIRA TALUK
ANANTHPURAM DISTRICT-515 301
9. SMT. GANGAMMA
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA
W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT ANANTHAPURA COURT ROAD
ANANTHAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 001
10 . VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/AT BUKKAPATNA FORT
NEAR YSR REDDY STATUE
DHARMAVARAM TALUK
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 001
11 . RAMAKRISHNAPPA
W/O LATE YASHODAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
12 . SMT. PAVITHRA
D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
13 . SMT. CHANDRIKA
D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO. 11, 12 AND 13
ARE R/AT BANDARLAHALLI
THONDEBHAVI HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA-561 211
14 . SMT. NAGARTHNA
D/O LATE ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
15 . SMT. KANTHAMMA
W/O LATE VENU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
16 . TEJASHWINI
W/O LATE VENU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
17 . THEJA
S/O LATE VENU
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT NO. 14 TO 17 ARE
R/AT GOLLAPALLI, PENUGONDA TALUK
ANANTHPURA DISTIRCT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 110
18 . SRI. SRIRAMULU
S/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO. 11-1-372
ARAVINDANAGARA
ANANTHPURA TOWN
ANDRAPRADESH-515 001
19 . SRI. ASHWATHANARAYANA
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT, NO.44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE
KURUBARAHALLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT RETIRED POLICE
20 . RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.16, 1ST FLOOR
ABOVE KARUNYA
HI-TECH DIAGNOSTIC CENTER
6TH CROSS, SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD
SHETTIHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST POST
BENGALURU 560 015
21 . SMT. PARVATHAMMA
D/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA
W/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT UJINI, HOSAHALLI, HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
22 . SMT. RAMAKKA
D/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA
W/O KRISHNMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT GUNJURU, S.S GHATI
THUBAGERE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
23 . SMT. SUVARNAMMA
D/O LATE RAMASWAMY GOWDA
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT YAKARANAHALLI, HOSALLI HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
24 . SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
BEHIND THRIVENI SCHOOL
PENUGONDA TOWN AND TALUK
ANANTHPURA DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH-515 110
25 . SMT. RAMAKKA
D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
W/O ASWATHNARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT, NO. 44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE
KURUBARAHALLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
26 . SMT. RANI
D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
W/O RAMACHANDRA
C/O ASWATHNARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT, NO. 44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE
KURUBARAHALLI
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
27 . SRI. ADINARAYANA
S/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
28 . SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O ADINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
29 . SMT. PADMA
D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 27 TO 29 ARE
R/AT BEHIND THRIVENI SCHOOL
PENUGONDA TOWN AND TALUK
ANANTHPURA DISTRICT
ANDRAPRADESH 515 110
30 . SMT. ANURADHA
D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. M-7, POLICE QUARTOS
OLD BUILDING, AUDUGODI
BENGALURU-560 030
31 . SMT. GANGADEVI
W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
32 . SMT. ARUNA
D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
33 . SMT. ANITHA
D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
34 . SRI. MARUTHI
S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
35 . SRI. BALAJI
D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.31 TO 35
ALL RESIDING AT ANANTHPURAM
COURT ROAD
ANANTHPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT
ANANTHPURA-515 001
36 . SMT. JYOTHI
W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
37 . SRI. RAJU
S/O LATE NANJIVULU @
NANJINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
38 . SMT. SWEETY
D/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
39 . SMT. HAPPY
W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
40 . SMT. LOVELY
W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 36 TO 40 ARE
RESIDENT OF 4-A, FORTUNE GREEN
APARTMENT, 5TH LANE
KRISHNANAGARA
GUNTOOR TALUK AND DISTRICT
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
41 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB)
OFFICER AT 39, BHARATH SCOUTS
AND GUIDES BUILDING
SHANTHI GRUHA, 4TH FLOOR
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
42 . SMT. GAYATHRI K
W/O KITTA NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING IN BINTRAVALLI
REVENUE QUARTERS
BALAGADI VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 126
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. YASHAS K, ADVOCATE FOR R42;
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025, NOTICE TO R1 TO R40
ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1 (r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED ON
I.A. NO.X IN O.S NO.460/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING THE IA
NO.X FILED UNDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.
THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
MFA No. 3171 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
These two appeals arise out of a single order dated
28th January 2025 passed by the Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC,
Nelamangala in OS No.460/2022. The said order was
rendered in connection with interlocutory application filed
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of defendant No.42 seeking
vacation of a prior injunction order dated 29.6.2024. The
trial Court upon due consideration, allowed the said
application thereby, vacating the earlier interim order
which has restrained the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board (`KIADB' for short) from releasing
compensation pursuant to the acquisition of land bearing
Sy.No.44 of Mavinakunte Village, Nelamangala Tq. while
simultaneously directing defendant No.42 to furnish a
bank guarantee for the compensation amount as a
condition for receiving the same.
2. Aggrieved by the vacation of the injunction, the
plaintiffs have preferred MFA 969/25. Conversely,
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
defendant No.42 has filed MFA No.3171/2025, impugning
the imposition of the condition of furnishing a bank
guarantee.
3. The factual substratum out of which, these
proceedings arise, may now be delineated as under:
The suit property in question is a land bearing
Sy.No.44, situated at Mavinakunte Village in Nelamangala
Tq. measuring approximately 9 acres 4 guntas which
comprises 8.28 acres of cultivable land and 16 guntas of
Kharab land. It is not in dispute that, the said property
was acquired originally by one P.Ramanna
S/o.Sanjeevappa, under a registered sale deed back to the
year 1951. The said Ramanna is reported to have died
intestate and was survived by seven children. The present
plaintiffs and defendant no's.1 to 40 in the suit are the
natural heirs and descendants of Ramanna.
4. The plaintiff's suit being one for partition and
declaration is founded on the assertion that, the suit
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
schedule property constitutes joint family property that
has remained undivided. They contend that, by virtue of
their status as co-parceners, they are each entitled to a
one seventh (1/7th) share in the suit schedule property.
Their grievance arises out of certain transactions which
allegedly alienate the joint property without their consent.
Specifically, they challenge a sale transaction effected in
favour of defendant No.42 Smt.Gayathri K., on 11th
September 2023. The plaintiffs dispute the legality and
validity of the sale deed on multiple grounds including
that, the property was purchased pendent elite during the
subsistence partition suit and that the title of the vendor
itself is under a cloud owing to a contested Will.
5. On the other hand, particularly defendant nos.
18 to 20 have taken up a contention that, the property
was not available for partition as it was subject matter of
testamentary disposition. According to them, late
P.Ramanna had executed a Will dated 26th May 1982
under which the property was bequeathed to their mother
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
Smt.Savitramma. Based on this will they had secured a
probate in P & SC No.3/2023. They contend that, the sale
in favour of defendant no.42 was made after the grant of
probate is accordingly valid and lawful. The purchaser,
defendant no.42, has based her claim on this probate and
the consequent sale deed, asserting that she is a bona
fide purchaser for value.
6. Having heard the arguments of both the side
and on perusal of material placed on record, it shows
that, there was acquisition of the said property by KIADB
commenced under the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short
`2013 Act') and compensation proceedings were
initiated. Plaintiffs moved an application under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 CPC to injunct KIADB from disbursing
compensation to defendant No.42. They contended that
their rights as co-owners in an undivided property were
being usurped and that irreparable injury would be
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
caused if compensation were paid to a person whose title
was in dispute. The records reveal that, the trial Court
had initially granted said injunction, however, defendant
No..42 moved to vacate the same by filing I.A.10 under
Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. The appellant-defendant No.42
contended that, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to
restrain the process of acquisition or disbursement under
the 2013 Act and that the injunction granted against
KIADB was statutorily barred. She further pleaded that,
she had acquired the property legally based on a probate
of the Will so stated supra, and as such, her right to
receive compensation could not be restrained.
7. The learned trial Court while accepting the
contention regarding jurisdiction, observed that the Civil
Court cannot entertain any challenge or pass any order
interfere in proceedings arising out of land acquisition or
in disbursement of compensation by the Competent
Authority under the 2013 Act. However, the trial Court, in
an effort to preserve equities and balance, the interest of
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
both the parties, directed that, defendant No.42 could
receive the compensation subject to furnishing a bank
guarantee for the entire compensation amount.
8. In MFA No.969/2025, the plaintiffs have
challenged the legality of the order vacating the
injunction and assert that, the trial Court failed to
appreciate the nature of plaintiff's interest in the
property. They argued that, the sale deed in favour of
defendant No.42 is tainted by the doctrine of lis pendens
as it was executed during the pendency of the present
suit. According to them, the Will itself is suspicious as it
purports to have been executed in the year 1992 by
P.Ramanna who, they allegedly had died much earlier, in
the year 1954. They further argue that, the probate was
obtained without due process and that they were not
made parties to the probate proceedings, and hence and
the same is liable to ignored for the purposes of deciding
interim relief. They also argue that, the Civil Court has
jurisdiction to protect the rights of coparceners in
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
undivided party restraining payment of compensation to a
third party purchaser is permissible as an interim safe
guard.
9. In MFA No.3171/2025, Defendant No.42 has
challenged the condition imposed upon her to furnish a
bank guarantee. The learned Sr.Counsel appearing for
Defendant No.42 specifically contend that, once the court
accepts bar on jurisdiction to restrain KIADB, the logical
corollary would be that, the court cannot impose any
conditions upon her entitlement to receive the
compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant
maintains that, the title of Defendant No.42 is clear based
on the Will which has already been probated and the suit
filed by the plaintiff is speculative and motivated attempt
to defeat the rights of appellant/Defendant No.42.
10. Having considered the respective contentions,
now I proceed to examine the legality and propriety of
the impugned order.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
11. The central question to be addressed in the
present appeals is two fold: firstly: whether the civil Court
had jurisdiction to injunct KIADB from disbursing
compensation under 2013 Act and secondly: whether the
condition imposed upon defendant No.42 to furnish a
bank guarantee is sustainable in law and equity.
12. As regards the first issue, this Court is of the
clear view that, Section 63 of the 2013 Act unequivocally
bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters
pertaining to land acquisition. The bar is expressed in
absolute terms and encompasses within its scope not only
the determination of compensation but also any matter
arising out of the acquisition proceedings. The intent of
the legislature is manifest in providing an exclusive
administrative judicial machinery for determination of
compensation and redressal of grievances arising there
from. When the law expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the
civil court, any injunction granted by such court in
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
contravention thereof, would be ultravires and liable to be
vacated as has been done by the trial Court.
13. The trial Court rightly observed that, it had no
jurisdiction to restrain KIADB from disbursing
compensation and that such relief could only be sought
before the appropriate constitutional Courts or through
mechanisms provided within the act itself. However, while
the jurisdiction of the civil court to restrain KIADB is
barred, the Courts retain jurisdiction over disputes inter
se between private parties such as claims for partition
declaration of title, shares in partition.
14. In the present case, the plaintiffs have asserted
a coparcenery interest in the property. Their claim may or
not eventually succeed but it is not frivolous or devoid of
legal foundation. The probate granted in favour of the
defendants may stand, but, plaintiffs have already
initiated separate proceedings to contest its validity.
Moreover, even if the probate remains in force, its validity
is only presumptive and not conclusive in all respects. It
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
may lend support to Defendant No.42 but, whether the
Will is genuine or not, whether the sale was legally
permissible and whether the plaintiffs have subsisting
right in the compensation amount, are questions that
require trial.
15. As to the doctrine of lis pendens the sale in
favour of defendant No.42 being subsequent to the
institution of the suit, is certainly hit by its operation. The
doctrine, as embodied under Section 52 of Transfer of
Property Act, does not render a transaction void but,
makes it subject to the outcome of the pending litigation.
The purchaser pendente lite takes the property with
notice of the suit and is bound by the eventual decree.
Thus, defendant No.42 cannot claim any immunity from
the consequences of pending litigation merely on the
basis of the sale deed or probate. Her rights are subject
to adjudication in the main suit.
16. On perusal of the impugned order, the learned
trial Court while vacating the injunction sought to
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
preserve the status quo by directing that, the
compensation amount be secured by way of a bank
guarantee. This direction is neither contrary to the
scheme of 2013 Act nor beyond the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court. While the Court could not restrain the KIADB,
it could certainly regulate the rights of the parties before
it by passing conditional orders that preserve the subject
matter of the suit. By requiring defendant No.42 to
furnish a bank guarantee, the trial Court ensured that, if
the plaintiffs succeed, they are not left without a remedy.
The condition does not affect the title of defendant No.42
or restrain her from receiving the compensation, but only
secures the interest of the plaintiffs in a manner that does
not contravene any statutory prohibition.
17. Having regard to the foregoing reasons, I am of
the opinion that, both the appeals are devoid of merit.
The trial Court has acted within the bounds of its
jurisdiction and has exercised its discretion judiciously. It
has correctly interpreted the scope of the bar under
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
Section 63 of 2013 Act and has appropriately balanced
the competing interests of the parties. The impugned
order thus, does not call for any interference as the
learned trial Court has adopted a balanced approach in
granting conditional relief to the appellant rather than
vacating the injunction unconditionally or maintaining the
same in its entirety. Such an order protects the status
quo and ensures that, pending final adjudication of title,
no irretrievable damage is caused to the either side.
Conditional nature of the order does not amount to
granting main relief in the suit but, is aimed at preserving
the subject matter of the dispute. The plaintiffs claim to
be a co-sharer whereas appellants claim is from alleged
Will.
18. This Court is unable to find any manifest
illegality or perversity in the reasoning adopted by the
trial Court. The order is a discretionary one passed under
Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. Appellate interference in
such matters is warranted only when the discretion is
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30648
HC-KAR
exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely. That is
not the case here. The appellants' rights are preserved,
and she is not denied compensation absolutely. She is
merely required to secure the amount by furnishing a
bank guarantee to safe guard the interests of the
plaintiffs in case they ultimately succeed.
19. In conclusion, I find no merit in the present
appeals. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal Nos.969/2025 and 3171/2025
are dismissed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 28.01.2025
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Nelamangala in O.S.No.
460/2022 is upheld.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
SK
