Karnataka High Court
Smt. Muniyellamma vs Shri Muniyappa on 3 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24224
RSA No. 2039 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2039 OF 2013 (DEC-)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MUNIYELLAMMA
W/O. LATE KAKAPPA
MAJOR, R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK - 562125
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
SUNITHA K S 1. SHRI MUNIYAPPA
Location: S/O. LATE KAKAPPA
HIGH COURT
OF AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
KARNATAKA R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK - 562125
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
2. SRI. VENKATASWAMY
S/O. LATE KAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24224
RSA No. 2039 of 2013
HC-KAR
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK - 562125
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
3. SRI. ANNANGAPPA
S/O. LATE BERIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK - 562125
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
4. NARAYANAPPA
S/O. ANNANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK - 562125
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
5. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE BERIKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK - 562125
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
6. SRI. RAMACHANDRA
S/O. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24224
RSA No. 2039 of 2013
HC-KAR
ANEKAL TALUK - 562125
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMED SADIQH B A.,C/R3-R6
(BY SRI.B.L.PRAVEEN KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R1
(BY SRI.RAMESH ADITYA ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 21.11.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.335/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD
19.10.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.926/2006 (OLD
O.S.NO.1451/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) & JMFC., ANEKAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24224
RSA No. 2039 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the respondents filed a memo
which reads as follows:
"The Respondent respectfully submits the
following for consideration of this Hon'ble Court:
1. The Respondent had filed O.S. No. 926/2006
against the Appellant seeking the following
reliefs:
a) A declaration that the Respondent is the
absolute owner of the suit schedule property;
b) Setting aside of the judgment and decree
passed in O.S. No. 551/1997;
c) A permanent injunction restraining the
Appellant from alienating the suit schedule
property and from interfering with the
Respondent's possession thereof.
2. The said suit (O.S. No. 926/2006) was
decreed in favour of the Respondent as prayed
for in the plaint. The Appellant preferred R.A. No.
335/2010 challenging the said judgment and
decree. The First Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the findings of the Trial
Court.
3. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both
the courts below, the Appellant filed the present
second appeal before this Hon'ble Court, raising
the following substantial questions of law;
NC: 2025:KHC:24224
HC-KAR
a) Whether the Trial Court erred in law in setting
aside its own earlier judgment and decree
passed in O.S. No. 551/1997, which had attained
finality, effectively sitting in appeal over its own
judgment? And whether the First Appellate Court
committed a further Illegality in confirming such
action?
b) Whether the Plaintiffs can maintain a second
suit seeking declaratory relief, despite having
suffered a decree to the contrary in O.S. No.
551/1997, which has attained finality?
4. During the course of arguments in the present
appeal, the Respondent came across binding
precedent of this Hon'ble Court holding that a
judgment and decree passed by a competent
civil court cannot be challenged in a separate
and independent suit, and such challenge must
be made only through appropriate appellate or
review proceedings.
5. The Respondent submits that the case has
strong merit, and both the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court have passed detailed
judgments in favour of the Respondent on all
substantive issues. However, if the appeal is
allowed solely on the technical ground that the
judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.
551/1997 could not have been challenged by
filing a fresh suit (O.S. No. 926/2006), grave and
irreparable injury and hardship will be caused to
the Respondent, who will be left remediless
despite having succeeded on merits before two
courts.
6. Therefore, in the interest of justice, equity,
and fair adjudication, the Respondent humbly
NC: 2025:KHC:24224
HC-KAR
seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw
O.S. No. 926/2006, with liberty to:
a) Prefer an appeal or review against the
judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.
551/1997; and/or
b) File appropriate proceedings, including
appeal/review against Misc. No. 77/2002 / MA
No. 47/2003, before the competent Jurisdictional
court, so that the dispute between the parties
can be adjudicated afresh on merits.
7. The Respondent prays that such liberty be
granted to ensure that justice is not denied on
procedural or technical grounds.
PRAYER
In view of the above, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to:
• Permit the Respondent to withdraw 0.S.No.
926/2006;
• Grant liberty to initiate appropriate
appellate or review proceedings in respect
of O.S. No. 551/1997 and/or Misc. No.
77/2002/MA No. 47/2003 before the
appropriate court; and
• Pass such other and further orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the interest of justice and equity.
• Further the Appellant shall not alienate or
create third party interest in the suit
schedule property for the period of 1 month
NC: 2025:KHC:24224
HC-KAR
or till filing of the proceedings as aforesaid
whichever is earlier."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has no
objections for withdrawing the suit with a aforesaid
liberty.
3. The memo is placed on record.
4. Respondent No.6 is permitted to withdraw
the suit with a liberty sought in the memo.
5. As respondent No.6 has withdrawn the suit,
In view of the same, nothing survives for
consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal
is dismissed.
6. In case if respondent No.6 initiate an
appropriate proceedings as alleged in the memo, all
the contentions of the parties are kept open. If the
respondent No.6 initiates any proceedings, the time
spent in suit and appeals shall be excluded.
NC: 2025:KHC:24224
HC-KAR
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the appellant will not alienate the suit schedule
property for a period of one month.
8. Undertaking is placed on record.
9. In view of the dismissal of the appeal,
IA.No.1/2014 does not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, IA.No.1/2014 is disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
RCK
