[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri.Radha Krishna Reddy vs Sri.Aswatha Reddy on 1 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.229 OF 2022 (DEC-INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. SRI RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT
CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TQ. 560 064.
3. SMT. LAKSHMI
D/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY
W/O JAGADISH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT HOODI VILLAGE
NEAR WHITEFILED
K R PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TQ. 560 105.
4. SMT. KAMALAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY
W/O GANESH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT KAVALA HOSAHALLI VILALGE
ANEKA TQ 562 106.
2
5. SMT. RAJAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
W/O KRISHNA REDDY
R/AT KYALASANAHALLI
K R PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TQ.
BENGALURU 560 077.
THE APPELLANT NO.2 TO 5 ARE
REP. THORUGH THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI RADHA KRISHNA REDDY
6. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
W/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TQ. 560 064.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.R.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI.ASWATHA REDDY
S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TQ. 560 064.
2. SRI. RAMANJANAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TQ. 560 064.
3. SRI. KRISHNA
S/O LATE MUNIANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
3
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TQ 560 064.
4. SRI. MUNIRAJA REDDY
S/O RAMAREDDY
DEAD BY LR'S
4(A) SMT. PADMAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIRAJA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
4(B) SMT. PREMA
D/O LATE MUNIRAJA REDDY
4(C) SRI. RAGHU M.
S/O LATE MUNIRAJA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
4(D) SRI. NARASIMHA REDDY
S/O LATE MUNIRAJA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
4(E) SMT. ROOPA
D/O LATE MUNIRAJA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
No.105/2, CHOKKANAHALLI,
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
THE COURT ORDER DTD:15.3.24)
5. SRI MANJUANTH
S/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TQ. 560 064.
4
6. SRI K R SUDHEER
S/O K N RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT HANUMANAHALLI VILALGE
MARALAVADI
KANAKAPURA 562 121.
7. THE STAE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
M. S. BUILIDNG
AMBEKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560 001.
8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DIST
K. G. ROAD
BENGALURU 560 009.
9. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TQ
HOTEL SHARAVATHI
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU 560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.M.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R3
ALSO FOR R4 (A TO D);
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R6;
SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R7 TO 9;
R2, R4(E), R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DTD: 5.10.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 14.01.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.133/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
5
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 23.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The Regular First Appeal No.229/2022 was filed against
the judgment dated 14.01.2022 passed by the IV Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in
Original Suit No.133/2011.
2. We have heard Shri. K.R. Krishnamurthy, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri. D. M.
Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents
No.3 and 4 (A-D), Shri. Chandrashekar Patil, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Shri. Kiran V.
Ron, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt.
Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondents No.7 to 9.
3. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the
plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint
Schedule Property as owners and seeking to restrain the
defendants from interfering with their possession and
enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties. Alternatively, a
prayer was also sought for division of Plaint 'A' Schedule
Property by metes and bounds between the plaintiffs and
the third defendant. There was a further injunction sought
directing defendant No. 8 to effect entries in the revenue
records in the name of the plaintiffs. The Suit Schedule
Properties are 6 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.75/4
situated as Chokkanahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk. The title was traced to the Sale Deed dated
18.01.1920, a registered Partition Deed dated 30.11.2006
and a decree in O.S.No.7861/1997 on the file of the
Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. As far as the Plaint 'B'
Schedule Property was concerned, a re-grant Order dated
30.07.1975 was also set up.
4. Defendants No.6 to 8, who were the State of
Karnataka, the Deputy Commissioner and Tahasildar,
Bengaluru North, had filed the written statement specifically
stating that the property in question was Government Land
and that no re-grant order had been passed in favour of
defendant No.3 or anybody else and there is no record of
granting of the land in question. The trial Court framed
issues including whether the plaintiffs prove that they are
the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and
whether they prove possession and enjoyment of 'B' Suit
Schedule Property.
5. After considering the contentions advanced, the
Court found that the Sale Deed relied on by the plaintiffs did
not refer to any Survey number and that the said Sale Deed
cannot be relied on to accept the contention of the plaintiff
that they are the owners of the suit schedule properties.
Further, it was also found that after enactment of the
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act,
1954, the property stood vested in the Government and in
the absence of reliable re-grant orders, the plaintiffs would
have no right to claim ownership over the properties. It was
found that the plaintiffs had not produced RTC pertaining to
6 acres 38 guntas of land allegedly owned by their
grandfather and had also not produced the Death
Certificates of either their father or the grandfather to
ascertain in which year they died. The contention with
regard to partition of the property was also not found to be
proved. After considering all the contentions advanced, the
Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to either the original relief claimed by them or to the
alternate relief of division of the property by metes and
bounds between plaintiffs and the third defendant. The suit
was dismissed with costs.
6. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has raised several legal contentions, we are of the
opinion that in the light of the finding now recorded in Writ
Appeal No.322/2023 and connected matters that there were
no re-grant orders made in respect of properties in
Sy.No.75/4. The said finding would apply to the suit
schedule properties as well. Since the Village was
admittedly a Jodi Inam Village, where the entire property
stood vested in the State by issuance of the Notification
under Section 1(4) of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act, 1954, no person would be entitled to
claim ownership of the properties in question unless there
was a valid re-grant order issued by the State Government.
7. We have considered the specific question of the
veracity of the re-grant order dated 30.07.1975 issued in
favour of Muniraja Reddy in Writ Appeal No.322/2023 and
connected matters. We have upheld the finding of the
Special Deputy Commissioner as approved by the learned
Single Judge that there was no such re-grant on 30.07.1975
and that the said order was a fraudulently created one.
8. In the above view of the matter, the appellants,
who based their claim on the said order of grant/re-grant
can have no sustainable contentions in this appeal. Their
claim for title based on a fraudulent order will have to fail.
The appeal filed by the plaintiffs is only to be rejected.
Further, we find no error in the findings of the trial Court,
which requires interference in the appeal. The appeal fails
and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed
of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
cp*
