Karnataka High Court
Sri K Krishna Murthy vs Sri Keshava on 28 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
RFA No. 439 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 425 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2006 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2006 (PAR)
IN RFA NO. 439/2006:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O M. KATAPPA
No.18, 1-A MAIN,
NANJAPPA BLOCK,
ADUGODI, BENGALURU.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. PUSHPA
W/O LATE K. KRISHNAMURTHY
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1(b) SMT. MONICA K.,
KARNATAKA
D/O LATE K. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
1(c) SMT. THEJASWINI K.,
D/O LATE K. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
1(d) SRI. MURALIDHARA K.,
S/O LATE K. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
RFA No. 439 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 425 of 2006
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.5, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
NEAR KATERAMMA TEMPLE
SARASWATHIPURAM, HALASURU
BENGALURU-560 008.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR
LRS OF DECEASED APPELLATS)
AND:
1. SRI. KESHAVA
S/O MANICKAPPA
NO.159,
SHAMANNA GOWDA LAYOUT
CHANNEL ROAD,
BENGALURU.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. AMBUJA
W/O LATE M. KESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
1(b) SMT. KAVITHA
D/O LATE M. KESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
1(c) SRI. MAHESH K.,
S/O LATE M. KESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
1(d) SRI. NATARAJ K.,
S/O LATE M. KESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
1(e) SMT. GIRIJA
D/O LATE M. KESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
RFA No. 439 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 425 of 2006
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.159, 1ST MAIN ROAD
SHAMANNA GOWDA LAYOUT
MAIN CHANNEL ROAD,
HALASURU
BENGALURU-560 008.
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 09.06.2021)
2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. KRISHNAPPA
SARAWATHIPURAM
2ND CROSS, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU -560 008.
3. SRI. THIMMARAYAPPA
S/O SRI MANICKAPPA
DOOR NO.74,
SARASWATHIPURAM
2ND CROSS, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560008.
4. SRI BALAKRISHNA
NO.147/2,
SARASWATHIPURAM
2ND CROSS, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560008.
5. SRI. VENUGOPAL
NO.146,
SARASWATHIPURAM
2ND CROSS, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560008.
6. SRI. MOTAPPA
NO.150,
SARASWATHIPURAM
2ND CROSS, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560008.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
RFA No. 439 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 425 of 2006
7. SRI. KATAPPA
S/O SRI MANICKAPPA
NO.151, SARASWATHIPURAM,
2ND CROSS, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560008.
8. SRI. PURUSHOTHAN
R/AT NO. 151, SARASWATHIPURAM
2ND CROSS, ULSOOR
BENGALURU - 560 008.
9. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
HOSKOTE TOWN
BENGALURU DISTRICT
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S
9(a) SRI. RAVI S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.137
SARASWATHIPURAM
2ND CROSS, ULSOOR
BENGALURU - 560 008.
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2023)
10. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
W/O GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.76, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
SARASWATHIPURAM, ULSOOR
BENGALURU-560 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VASANTHA SHETTY M., ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND R10;
SRI. G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) TO R1(e);
R2 - SERVED APPEAL DISMISSED AS AGAINST R3 TO R7
VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2010;
R9(a) - SERVED)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
RFA No. 439 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 425 of 2006
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.11.2005
PASSED IN O.S.NO.2607/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.NO.32), PARTLY
DECREEING HE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
IN RFA NO. 425/2006:
BETWEEN:
1.. SRI. KESHAVA
S/O MANICKAPPA
NO.159, MAIN CHANNEL ROAD
SHAMANNA GOWDA LAYOUT
HALASOORU, BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU-560 008.
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1(a) SMT. AMBUJA
W/O LATE KESHAVA M.
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
1(b) SMT. KAVITHA
D/O LATE KESHAVA M.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
1(c) SRI. MAHESH KUMAR K.,
S/O LATE KESHAVA M.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
1(d) SRI. NATARAJ KUMAR K.,
S/O LATE KESHAVA M.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
1(e) SMT. GIRIJA
D/O LATE M. KESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
RFA No. 439 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 425 of 2006
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.159, MAIN CHANNEL ROAD
SHAMANNA GOWDA LAYOUT
HALASOOR, BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU-560 008.
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.07.2023)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT NOS.1(a) TO 1(e))
AND:
1. SRI. K. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O M. KATAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1(a) SMT. PUSHPA
W/O LATE K. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
1(b) SMT. MONICA K.,
D/O LATE K. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
1(c) SMT. THEJASWINI K.,
D/O LATE K. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
1(d) SRI. MURALIDHARA K.,
S/O LATE K. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.5, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN
NEAR KATERAMMA TEMPLE
SARASWATHIPURAM, HALASURU
BENGALURU-560 008.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
RFA No. 439 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 425 of 2006
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2023)
2. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
2ND CROSS
SARASWATHIPURAM
ULSOOR
BENGALURU-560008
3. THIMMARAYAPPA
S/O MANICKAPPA
DOOR NO.74, 2ND CROSS,
SARASWATHIPURAM
ULSOOR
BENGALURU-560008
4. BALAKRISHNA
NO.147/2, 2ND CROSS,
SARASWATHIPURA
ULSOOR
BENGALURU-560008
5. VENUGOPAL
NO.146, 2ND CROSS,
SARASWATHIPURA
ULSOOR
BENGALURU-560008
6. MOTAPPA
NO.150, 2ND CROSS,
SARASWATHIPURA
ULSOOR
BENGALURU-560008
7. KATAPPA
S/O MANICKAPPA
NO.151, 2ND CROSS,
SARASWATHIPURA
ULSOOR
BENGALURU-560008
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
RFA No. 439 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 425 of 2006
8. PURUSHOTHAM
NO.147/2, 2ND CROSS,
SARASWATHIPURA
ULSOOR
BENGALURU-560008
9. GOWRAMMA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
9(a) RAVI S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.137, 1 CROSS,
2ND MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM
ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 008.
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.02.2024)
10. SARASWATHAMMA
W/O GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
NO.76, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
SARASWATHIPURAM
BENGALURU-560008
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) TO (d);
R2 - SERVED; R4 - SERVED;
R7 - R8 AND R10 - SERVED
APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R3, R5 AND R6
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.03.2010)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.11.2005,
IN O.S.NO.2607/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL.
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO. 32), PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
RFA No. 439 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 425 of 2006
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the respondent in
R.F.A.No.439/2006 and also the counsel for the appellant
R.F.A.No.425/2006 and also counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1(A-D) and counsel for respondent No.8
and 10 is absent. This Court made it clear in the previous
occasion itself if counsel does not appear on the next date
of hearing, matter will be heard in his absence. Hence,
taken as no arguments of respondent Nos.8 and 10.
2. The challenge made in R.F.A.No.439/2006 by
the appellant praying this Court to set-aside the judgment
and decree dated 03.11.2005 passed by the Trial Court
and he pleased to decree the suit and having perused the
judgment passed in O.S.No.2607/1994. The suit was
partly decreed, the Plaintiff shall be entitled for partition
and separate possession of his 1/10th share out of plaint -
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
E schedule property excluding the portion purchased by
the first defendant on 20.12.1979 under the sale deed
Ex.D6.
3. Now, the counsel for appellant in
R.F.A.No.439/2006 filed memo stating that the appeal in
so far as it related to disallowing the claim in respect of
suit 'E' schedule property Site No.5 which relates to the
alienation made by Muniyamma during her lifetime. The
appellant accept the finding of the Trial Court and in the
memo says that not pressing their appeal and their appeal
be dismissed as being without merits. In view of the
memo filed by the appellant in R.F.A.No.439/2006 and
also accepts the finding of the Trial Court, does not
requires any consideration of this appeal.
4. The respondent Nos.1(A-D) who are the
appellants in R.F.A.No.439/2006 also in the memo submits
that the appeal filed by the respondents wherein sought
for the relief to set-aside the finding of the Trial Court that
Muniyamma had no right to settle the property in favour
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
her son Keshava. The respondents have produced Ex.D1 -
the settlement deed and admits that the settlement deed
is witnessed by the uncle of the original plaintiff and the
settlement deed was not challenged by any of the children
of late Sri.Manikappa or their legal heirs. Therefore, there
is an admission that Smt.Muniyamma had valid title to
execute the settlement deed. Accordingly, the appellant do
not press their defense which have taken in the suit and
they have no objection for setting aside the finding of the
Trial Court, holding that Muniyamma had no right to
execute the settlement deed. The respondents state that
the original plaintiff's sisters have expressed that they
have no claim over the suit schedule property left behind
by the Late Sri.Manikappa and also respondents would
submits that admitting Sri.Keshava and thereafter his legal
heirs have been in possession and ownership of Site No.6
from the date of the settlement deed without any
objection from the legal heirs of Late Sri.Manikappa.
Hence, submits that R.F.A filed by the appellant in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
R.F.A.No.425/2006 may be allowed and consequently, the
suit O.S.No.2607/1994 to be dismissed.
5. It is also stated in the memo that they are the
occupants of site No.5 which is covered under the sale
deed and also seeks time till 1st June-2025 to vacate the
said premises and also to that effect, memo is placed on
record and parties have also signed the said memo that is
appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d). They are the appellants in
R.F.A.No. 439/2006. Having perused the memo wherein
conceded for the dismissal of appeal R.F.A.No.439/2006
and also allowing of R.F.A.No.425/2006 wherein also
conceded to allow the appeal. Consequently, dismissed the
suit and also undertaken to vacate the premises on or
before 1st of June-2025 by the appellant in
R.F.A.No.439/2006. Having considered the memo as well
as conceding the finding of the Trial Court in respect of
R.F.A.No.439/2006, appeal is liable to be dismissed. In
view of R.F.A.No.425/2006 also to be allowed by setting
aside the order of the Trial Court in respect of the findings
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8878
which affect the R.F.A.No.425/2006 in respect of
settlement deed pertaining to site No.6 and also agreed to
vacate the site No.5 in which the appellant in
R.F.A.No.439/2006 is in occupation. In view of the memo,
the appeal R.F.A.No.425/2006 is allowed. Consequently,
the suit in O.S.No.2607/1994 is dismissed. The
R.F.A.No.439/2006 is also dismissed.
6. The appellants in R.F.A.No.439/2006 are given
time till 1st June -2025 to vacate the premises of site No.5.
7. In view of the memo, the appellant in
R.F.A.No.425/2006 becomes the owners in view of
conceding the settlement deed executed by
Smt.Muniyamma. Accordingly, these two R.F.As' are
disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
