Karnataka High Court
Sri U M Nataraj vs Sri N M Ananda on 18 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
RSA No.1118 of 2015
C/W RSA Nos.1136 of 2015
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1118 OF 2015 (SP)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1136 OF 2015 &
1499 OF 2015
IN RSA NO.1118 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. M. YASHODAMMA
W/O SRI. K. ANNAJI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
KERALAPURA VILLAGE AND POST
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573136.
... APPELLANT
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD E., ADVOCATE)
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA AND:
1. N.M. ANANDA
S/O SRI. T.N.MANDANNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
H. NO.10, KRISHNA LANE
KANNANDABANE
MADIKERI TOWN AND POST
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571201.
2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE S.M.MALLAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
RSA No.1118 of 2015
C/W RSA Nos.1136 of 2015
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
1ST BLOCK, KUSHALANAGAR TOWN
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 576111.
3. SRI. U.M.LAKSHMANA
S/O SRI. UNNI MODILIAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
3RD BLOCK, KUSHALANAGAR
GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SOMWARPET TALUK - 576111.
4. U.M. NATARAJ
S/O LATE S.M. MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT BACKSIDE OF
AYYAPPA TEMPLE,
DANDINAPET,
KUSHALNAGAR TOWN,
SOMWARPET TALUK - 576111.
5. SMT. S.M. SAVITHRAMMA
D/O LATE S.M. MALLAPPA AND
W/O KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT HITTANAHALLI POST
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571107.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.RAJASJHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R3, R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 19.01.2018 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
SRI B.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.04.2015 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.36/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
RSA No.1118 of 2015
C/W RSA Nos.1136 of 2015
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2014
PASSED IN EX.NO.63/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MADIKERI.
IN RSA NO.1136 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. U.M. NATARAJ
S/O LATE S.M. MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT BACKSIDE OF
AYYAPPA TEMPLE,
DANDINAPET,
KUSHALNAGAR TOWN,
SOMWARPET TALUK - 571 234.
2. SMT. S.M. SAVITHRAMMA
D/O LATE S.M. MALLAPPA AND
W/O SRI KRISHNA
R/AT HITTANAHALLI POST
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571107.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI N.M. ANANDA
S/O SRI. T.N.MANDANNA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
H. NO.10
KRISHNA LANE
KANNANDABANE
MADIKERI TOWN AND POST
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571201.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
RSA No.1118 of 2015
C/W RSA Nos.1136 of 2015
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA M.,
W/O LATE SRI. S.M.MALLAPPA
AGRICULTURIST
1ST BLOCK, KUSHALANAGAR TOWN
MADIKERI - 571201.
3. SRI. U.M.LAKSHMANA
S/O SRI. UNNI MODILIAR
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
3RD BLOCK, KUSHALANAGAR
GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SOMWARPET TALUK - 571234.
4. SMT. M. YASHODAMMA
W/O SRI. K. ANNAJI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
KERALAPURA VILLAGE AND POST
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573136.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.RAJASJHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2, R3, R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI SHIVAPRASAD E., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.04.2015 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.36/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2014
PASSED IN EX.NO.63/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MADIKERI.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
RSA No.1118 of 2015
C/W RSA Nos.1136 of 2015
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN RSA NO.1499 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. N.M. ANANDA
S/O SRI. T.N.MANDANNA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
H. NO.10
KRISHNA LANE
KANNANDABANE
MADIKERI TOWN AND POST
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571201.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S.M. NATARAJ
S/O LATE S.M. MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT BACKSIDE OF
AYYAPPA TEMPLE,
DANDINAPET,
KUSHALNAGAR TOWN,
SOMWARPET TALUK - 571201.
2. SMT. S.M. SAVITHRAMMA
D/O LATE S.M. MALLAPPA AND
W/O KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT HITTANAHALLI POST
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571134.
3. SMT. M. PARVATHAMMA
W/O LATE S.M.MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
1ST BLOCK, KUSHALANAGAR TOWN
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571201.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
RSA No.1118 of 2015
C/W RSA Nos.1136 of 2015
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
4. SRI. U.M.LAKSHMANA
S/O SRI. UNNI MODILIAR
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
3RD BLOCK, KUSHALANAGAR
GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SOMWARPET TALUK - 571201.
5. SMT. M. YASHODAMMA
D/O LATE S.M. MALLAPPA
W/O SRI. K. ANNAJI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
KERALAPURA VILLAGE AND POST
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. ASHWATH C.M., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. SHIVAPRASAD E., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
V/O DATED 23.10.2024 NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.04.2015 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.36/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2014
PASSED IN EX.NO.63/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MADIKERI.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
RSA No.1118 of 2015
C/W RSA Nos.1136 of 2015
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
RSA No.1118 of 2015 is filed by Judgment Debtor
No.4, (for short, 'JDR') challenging the judgment and
decree dated 18.04.2015 passed in RA.No.36 of 2014 on
the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kodagu, at
Madikeri, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order
dated 29.11.2014 passed in Ex.No.63 of 2007 on the file
of the Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri, dismissing IA No.IX
filed by the objectors.
2. RSA No. 1136 of 2015 is filed by Objectors,
challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2015
passed in RA.No.36 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional
District Judge, Kodagu, at Madikeri, dismissing the appeal
and confirming the order dated 29.11.2014 passed in
Ex.No.63 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at
Madikeri, dismissing IA No.IX filed by the objectors.
3. RSA No.1499 of 2015 is filed by Decree
Holder/Assignee, challenging the judgment and decree
dated 18.04.2015 passed in RA.No.36 of 2014 on the file
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
of the I Additional District Judge, Kodagu, at Madikeri,
dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated
29.11.2014 passed in Ex.No.63 of 2007 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri, dismissing IA No.IX filed by
the objectors.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the trial Court.
5. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case
are that, one M.M. Thimmaiah, and Smt. Malathi, had filed
suit in OS No.35 of 1997 on the file of Civil Judge, Kodagu,
Madikeri, seeking relief of specific performance of the
agreement dated 22.02.1993 and the said suit came to be
decreed by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006.
Thereafter, the Decree Holders have transferred the
decree under Order XXI Rule 16 of CPC in favour of N.M.
Ananda-Assignee, (Appellant in RSA No.1499 of 2015).
The said assignee has filed an application under Order XXI
Rule 16 of CPC, to draft the Sale Deed which came to be
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
allowed by the Trial Court and accordingly, registered Sale
Deed was executed in the Execution proceedings. During
the pendency of the execution proceedings, JDR No.1 died
and his legal representatives were brought on record. JDR
No.1(a) and 1(b) have filed application under Order XXI
Rule 95 of CPC and sought to object for the execution of
the decree. It is also forthcoming from the finding
recorded by the Executing Court that, the original
defendant - S.M. Mallapa, had filed Form No.7, before the
Land Tribunal, Somvarpet, seeking occupancy rights in
respect of the subject land and order of Land Tribunal is
produced at Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. It is the contention of the
objectors that, the Tribunal confirmed the occupancy right
in favour of the Judgment Debtor No.1-S.M. Mallappa, and
same would enure to the benefit of members of the joint
family and therefore, the said S.M. Mallappa, has no
authority under law to enter into Agreement dated
22.02.1993 with the plaintiffs, in OS No.35 of 1997. It is
further case of the objectors that, the Sale Agreement is
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
hit by Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
and Agreement of Sale itself is void document and
therefore, objected for execution of the judgment and
decree passed in OS No. 35 of 1997. The application filed
by the objectors in IA No.IX, in Ex.No.63 of 2007 came to
be dismissed by order dated 29.11.2014 by the Trial Court
and feeling aggrieved by the same, legal representatives
of JDR No.1/objectors, have filed RA.No.36 of 2014 before
First Appellate Court and the said appeal came to be
dismissed, consequently, confirming the order dated
29.11.2014 in Ex.No.63 of 2007. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, objectors have filed RSA No.1136 of 2015, JDR No.4
has filed RSA No.1118 of 2015 and the Assignee/Decree
Holder has filed RSA No.1499 of 2015.
6. This court vide order dated 23.03.2021
formulated following substantial question of law:
i. Whether the Courts below committed an error
in construing an agreement of sale dated 22.02.1993
as an "alienation" for the purpose of Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
ii. Whether the Courts below committed an error
in holding that the agreement of sale dated 22.02.1993
to which the objectors were not parties, bound the
objectors as well, on the ground that the sale
agreement was executed to meet the legal necessities
of the family?
iii. Whether the Courts below committed an error
in not noticing the fact that the decree holder or the
assignee of the decree had failed to adduce any
evidence regarding the legal necessity that compelled
the sale of the suit property in terms of the agreement
of sale dated 22.02.1993?
iv. Whether the Courts below committed an error
in not restricting the decree to the share of the vendor
under the agreement of sale dated 22.02.1993, in the
face of findings of the Courts below that the grant of
the suit property by the Land Tribunal enured to the
benefit of the members of the family?
7. I have heard Sri. Shivaprasad E., learned
counsel appearing for appellant in RSA No.1118 of 2015,
for the respondent No.4 in RSA No.1136 of 2015 and for
the respondent No.5 in RSA No.1499 of 2015; Sri. S.
Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1 in RSA No.1118 of 2015 and in RSA No.1136 of 2015
and for the appellant in RSA No.1499 of 2015; Sri. B.N.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.5 in RSA No.1118 of 2015, for the appellants in RSA
No.1136 of 2015 and for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in RSA
No.1499 of 2015 and Sri. Ashwath C. M., learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.4 in RSA No.1499 of
2015.
8. Sri. Shivaprasad .E, learned counsel for the
appellant in RSA No.1118 of 2015 argued that OS No.35 of
1997 filed by the original plaintiff seeking relief of specific
performance against the father of the objector and the
said suit, came to be decreed on 30.11.2006. It is also
submitted that, father of the appellants have filed RFA
No.537 of 2007 before this Court and the appeal came to
be dismissed for default on 02.03.2007. It is the principal
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that,
since the land in question has been granted by the Land
Tribunal in favour of the father of the objectors, as per
Form No.10 dated 23.05.1981 and father of the objectors
had entered into Agreement of Sale dated 22.02.1993 with
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
the plaintiff in the suit, for total consideration of
Rs.2,10,000/- by receiving sum of Rs.80,000/- as advance
amount and the said agreement is void as per Section 61
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and in this
regard, learned counsel for the appellant, places reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Narayanamma and Another vs. Govindappa
and Others reported in (2019) 19 SCC 42 and argued
that, since the said Sale Agreement is void and illegal,
therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court is nonest in law and accordingly, sought for
interference of this court.
9. Nextly, it is argued by the Sri. Shivaprasad E.,
learned counsel for the appellant by referring the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Brakewel Automative Components (India) Private
Limited vs. P. R. Selvam Alagappan reported in
(2017) 5 SCC 371 that, when a decree is nullity in law
and therefore, the Executing Court has no jurisdiction for
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
issuing direction to execute the registered Sale Deed in
favour of the original plaintiffs /assignee and accordingly,
sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended
by the learned counsel for the appellant that, as the
judgment and decree in OS No.35 of 1997 is nullity in law
and as such, the decree is inexecutable decree and
therefore, submitted that both the courts below have
committed an error in dismissing the application, filed by
the objectors as well as the legal representatives of the
defendant No.1.
10. Sri. B.N. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants in RSA No.1136 of 2015, argued on similar
lines with the appellant in RSA No.1118 of 2015 and
further contended that since the land in question has been
granted in favour of the father of the objectors and
therefore, the grant shall enure to the benefit of the entire
family and therefore, the objectors and the legal
representatives deceased S.M. Mallappa had legal right
over the property in question and in this regard, he places
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Thimmappa Rai vs. Ramanna and Others
reported in (2007) 14 SCC 63 and in the case of Suraj
Lamp and Industries Private Limited vs. State of
Haryana and Another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656
and further contended that, the Agreement of Sale does
not create any interest in favour of parties under the said
agreement except seeking relief of specific performance
against the share of the seller is the Joint family and
therefore, in view of Section 61 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, the Agreement is void and accordingly,
sought for interference of this Court. Learned counsel for
the appellants also places reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Infra
Developers Ltd vs. Mahaveer Lunia and Others
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1208 and submitted
that no interest be created in favour of purchasers of the
land in question which is admittedly a grant, made by the
Land Tribunal in favour of the father of the objectors.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
11. Per contra, Sri. S. Rajashekar, learned counsel
for the appellant in RSA No.1499 of 2015 and contesting
respondents in aforementioned appeals, refers to the Gift
Deed dated 02.08.2002 (Ex.P5) said to have been
executed by S.M. Mallappa in favour of U.M. Nataraj,
(objector) and also, referred to the cause title in OS No.35
of 1997 and submitted that, the wife of the Mallappa-Smt.
M. Parvatamma, and daughter of Mallappa-M.
Yashodamma, were arraigned as defendant Nos.2 and 4 in
the above suit and therefore, these defendants, were well-
aware about the execution of the Agreement of Sale made
in favour of original plaintiff and accordingly, sought for
dismissal of the appeals in RSA No.1118 of 2015 and RSA
No.1136 of 2015.
12. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that one M.M. Thimmaiah and Smt. Malathi have
filed OS.No.35 of 1997 against S.M. Mallappa (father of
the objectors) and JDR No.4 in Ex.No.63 of 2016. JDR
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
No.2 in Ex. No.63 of 2007 is the wife of late S.M.
Mallappa. The said suit is filed by the plaintiff, claiming
right over the property based on the Agreement of Sale
dated 22.02.1993. It is forthcoming from the Agreement
of Sale as well as paragraph 8 in the plaint that, the land
in question is granted in favour of the father of the
objectors and there is a bar to alienate the suit property.
It is also to be noted and not disputed that, the land in
question is granted in favour of father of the Objectors and
Form No.10 has been issued by the Government in favour
of the father of the Objectors. Though the said suit came
to be decreed by the Trial Court, as per judgment and
decree dated 30.11.2006, however, the bar of alienation
made in the order of grant made by the Government is for
a period of 15 years and, as the Sale Agreement was
entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants therein,
on 22.02.1993, within the non-alienation period and same
is hit by Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
1961. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Narayanamma (supra) at paragraph 24 held as follows:
"24. The transaction between the late Bale
Venkataramanappa and the plaintiff is not disputed.
Initially the said Bale Venkataramanappa had executed
a registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff.
Within a month, he entered into an agreement to sell
wherein, the entire consideration for the transfer as
well as handing over of the possession was
acknowledged. It could thus be seen, that the
transaction was nothing short of a transfer of property.
Under Section 61 of the Reforms Act, there is a
complete prohibition on such mortgage or transfer for a
period of 15 years from the date of grant. Sub-section
(1) of Section 61 of the Reforms Act begins with a non-
obstante clause. It is thus clear that, the unambiguous
legislative intent is that no such mortgage, transfer,
sale, etc. would be permitted for a period of 15 years
from the date of grant. Undisputedly, even according to
the plaintiff, the grant is of the year 1983, as such, the
transfer in question in the year 1990 is beyond any
doubt within the prohibited period of 15 years. Sub-
section (3) of Section 61 of the Reforms Act makes the
legislative intent very clear. It provides, that any
transfer in violation of sub-section (1) shall be invalid
and it also provides for the consequence for such
invalid transaction."
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
13. In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court stated above, as the Land Tribunal has conferred
occupancy rights in favour of father of the Objectors by
issuing Form No.7 vide order passed in KNRSR7/D,
D8/1975-76 and Certificate of Occupancy Right was issued
in Form No.10 on 10.11.1981 and the Agreement of Sale
was entered into between the father of the Objectors with
the Agreement Holder - M.M. Thimmaiah on 22.02.1993
within the stipulated period of 15 years and therefore, the
said Agreement of Sale dated 22.02.1993 is in violation of
the order of Grant made in favour of father of the
objectors and as such, I find force in the submission made
by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in RSA
No.1118 of 2015. In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Narayanamma's case (supra) and also
as the subject land is the joint family property of the
father of the objectors - S.M. Mallappa and in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Thimmappa Rai's case (supra), the members of the joint
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
family property are entitled for share in the granted land
and such granted land has to be considered as the Hindu
joint family property and therefore, the Objectors have
legal right over the property in question and same has to
be devolved amongst the legal heirs of deceased S.M.
Mallappa.
14. In the backdrop of these established principles
of law, the plaintiff in OS.No.35 of 1997, though succeeds
in the suit, however, the said judgment and decree is
contrary to the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Narayanamma (supra) and
therefore, the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 in
O.S.No.35 of 1997 is nullity in law and same cannot be
executable in the Execution petition. In that view of the
matter, as the original decree Holder-plaintiff in O.S.No.35
of 1997 has not acquired the right in respect of the land in
question and as such, the assignee of the original decree
holder - appellant in RSA No.1136 of 2015 has no right to
claim on the property in question. Therefore, the Trial
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
Court has committed an error in rejecting IA No.IX filed by
the objectors and same has been erroneously dismissed
by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.36 of 2002. It is
also pertinent to mention here that, though the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant in RSA No.1499 of
2015 raised plea of res-judicata, since Smt. M.
Pravathama and Smt. M.Yashodamma were arrayed as
parties in the earlier proceedings in O.S.No.25 of 1997, I
am of the opinion that, Section 11 of CPC is not applicable
in the peculiar circumstances of the case, as this Court has
arrived at the conclusion that the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.35 of 1997 itself is contrary to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narayanamma's case, I do not
find substance in the submission of the learned Counsel
for the appellant in RSA 1499 of 2015. Accordingly, the
substantial question of law referred to above favours the
Objectors.
15. Hence, I pass the following:
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32121
& 1499 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) RSA 1118 of 2015 and RSA 1136 of 2015 are
hereby allowed. RSA 1499 of 2015 is hereby
dismissed.
ii) Application filed by the Objectors in IA No.IX in
Ex.No.63 of 2007 is hereby allowed. Accordingly,
the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 in OS
No.35 of 1997 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
Madikeri is hereby set aside.
iii) Suit in O.S.35 of 1997 on the file of Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.), Madikeri, is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
