Karnataka High Court
Sri G M Nagaraju vs Smt. Jampakka on 30 July, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29383
RSA No. 1164 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. G.M. NAGARAJU,
S/O MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O H. GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE,
HOSAKERE MAJARA, MIDIGESHI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JAMPAKKA
W/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
Digitally
signed by R
MANJUNATHA 2. SMT. MALLAKKA
Location:
HIGH COURT D/O LATE ERANNA
OF AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
KARNATAKA
R/AT KATAGANAHATTI
KASABA HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29383
RSA No. 1164 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. SMT. ERAMMA
D/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
4. SMT. SANNAMMA
D/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
5. SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
6. SMT. MALLAKKA
D/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
7. SMT. CHIKKEERAMMA
D/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YERS
R/AT MALLEKAVU GOLLARAHATTI,
C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK - 572 129.
8. SRI. NAGABUSHANA
S/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
9. SMT. MANGALAMMA
D/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
10. SRI. SAKRAPPA
S/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:29383
RSA No. 1164 of 2022
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3 TO 6
AND 8 TO 10 ARE R/AT
H. GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE
HOSAKERE MAJARA,
MEDIGESHI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.
11. SMT. DODDAKKA
W/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT H. GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE,
HOSAKERE MAJARA,
MEDIGESHI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIVEK B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10;
R11 - DODDAKKA, SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.12.2021
PASSED IN RA.NO.5034/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI.
REJECTING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER
DATED 24.11.2021 PASSED ON IA IN EX.NO.125/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
MADHUGIRI., DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 21
RULE 99 OF CPC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:29383
RSA No. 1164 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.C.V.Manjunatha, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.Vivek B.R., learned counsel for
respondent No.1 to 10.
2. Present second appeal is filed by the objector
who filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 in the
execution petition No.125/2010 which has been filed to
execute the decree passed in O.S.No.36/2005.
3. Appellant being the applicant, claimed
independent title over the suit property based on a Will
said to have been executed by the owner of the property.
4. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence
of the parties and hearing the arguments of the parties in
detail, dismissed the objectors application. Validity of the
said order was called in question by the objector by filing
an appeal in RA No.5034/2021.
NC: 2025:KHC:29383
HC-KAR
5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
hearing the parties in detail, dismissed the appeal filed by
the objector.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that appellant being the handicapped person, had
been bequeathed with the suit property by the erstwhile
owner and in respect of the same, a suit for declaration
was filed in O.S.No.303/2010.
7. Challenging the validity of both the orders,
present second appeal is filed to consider the following
substantial questions of law and sought for admitting the
appeal for further consideration:
i) Whether the Trial Court as well as the 1st
appellate Court erred in not appreciating the oral
evidence as well as documentary evidence in
proper perspective and also in giving due
weightage?
ii) Whether the Trial Court as well as the 1st
appellate Court erred in not noticing and
appreciating the fact of DHR Eranna is JDR-
NC: 2025:KHC:29383
HC-KAR
Doddakka's husband's uncle from same ancestor
well aware of the nature of the property devolved
upon Badanna and Eranna with equal share and
there is no partition amongst them, revenue
entries continued in the name of Eranna, despite
which ventured upon to enter into sale agreement
with the Doddakka-JDR who is illiterate and Widow
having no issues to grab the property which
virtually amounts to fraud?
ii) Whether the Trial Court as well as the 1st
appellate Court erred in giving weightage to the
statements of the DHR an outsider regarding Will
and of so called partition, when the concerned
persons JDR Doddakka being wife of late. Eranna
admitted the Will, in the comprehensive suit in
O.S. No. 303/2010, so also not disputed the Will in
execution proceedings and the DHR being outsider
cannot question the validity and genuinity of the
Will, however by examining witness to the Will the
execution was proved?
iv) Whether the Trial Court as well as the 1st
appellate Court erred in observing each and every
act of the obstructer/appellant so also of Mallaiah
who also made application obstructer, for
protection of their legitimate right and share in the
properties, in which absolutely there is nothing
wrong, as if same are to defraud DHR ?
NC: 2025:KHC:29383
HC-KAR
v) Whether the Trial Court as well as the 1st
appellate Court erred in not appreciating the fact
of Mallaiah raised objection regarding application
made by JDR Doddakka for change of Khata
relating to all the family property including the
property in question in its entirety much earlier to
so called sale agreement of DHR, suit in O.S. No.
49/2005 filed by him for partition is earlier to filing
of suit for specific performance by DHR in O.S. No.
36/2005, which demonstrates there is no any
collusion or so called fraud?
viii). Whether the courts below are right in not
considering the vital aspect of appeal in RA No.
7/2019 preferred against the dismissal of the suit
in O.S. No. 514/2010 for comprehensive relief of
declaration of ownership and declaring sale deed
dated 22/6/2011 executed through court process
as per order in Execution Case No. 125/2010 is
pending adjudication?
ix). Whether the Courts below are right in
rejecting/dismissing the application under Order
XXI Rule 99 of CPC?
x). Whether the Courts below are justified in
adopting pick and choose method while considering
evidence and proceeded on few Stray admissions?
NC: 2025:KHC:29383
HC-KAR
8. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the appellant being a handicapped person,
got title to the suit property by way of a Will executed by
the erstwhile owner of the suit property and therefore,
impugned Orders are perverse in nature and sought for
admitting the appeal for further consideration.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that suit filed in O.S.No.303/2010 ended in a
compromise and therefore, no further rights are to be
adjudicated by admitting the appeal.
10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, since
the appellant has already exhausted the remedy of filing a
suit seeking declaration that he is the owner of the
property which ended in compromise, the present appeal
cannot be entertained further that too based on the
NC: 2025:KHC:29383
HC-KAR
application filed under Order XXI Rule 99 being dismissed
by both the Courts with the concurrent finding that the
appellant has no independent right to object the duly
passed decree in O.S.No.35/2005.
12. Hence, the substantial questions of law do not
merit for further consideration.
13. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV
CT: BHK
