Karnataka High Court
Kumara vs Parvathi on 13 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20329
RSA No. 460 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.460 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. KUMARA,
S/O SHAMBUGOWDA,
AGED 51 YEARS.
2. PARAMESHA,
S/O SHAMBUGOWDA,
AGED 46 YEARS.
BOTH ARE
R/AT DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426.
3. THAYAMMA,
W/O PUTTEGOWDA,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AGED 61 YEARS.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. VINODA @ NAGAMMA,
KARNATAKA W/O DEVARAJU,
AGED 53 YEARS.
APPELLANTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT GOODE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426.
5. GEETHA @ SAVITHRI,
W/O MANJEGOWDA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
R/AT GANADAHALLI VILLAGE,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20329
RSA No. 460 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. BHAGYAMMA,
W/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA,
AGED 56 YEARS,
R/AT MADEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 116.
7. D.S. NINGEGOWDA,
S/O SHAMBHUGOWDA @ THIMMAIH,
AGED 77 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
K.R.PETE TALUK.
SHIVEGOWDA,
DEAD BY LRS.
8. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA,
AGED 75 YEARS.
9. MANJEGOWDA,
S/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA,
AGED 55 YEARS.
10. RUKMINI,
D/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA,
AGED 53 YEARS.
11. ANNEGOWDA,
S/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA,
AGED 51 YEARS.
12. ROHINI,
D/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA,
AGED 49 YEARS.
APPELLANTS NO.8 TO 12 ARE
R/AT DEVARAHALLI,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20329
RSA No. 460 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. KRISHNEGOWDA,
S/O SHAMBHUGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED 70 YEARS,
R/AT SY.NO.56,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030.
14. SUBBAMMA,
W/O MANJEGOWDA,
AGED 56 YEARS,
R/AT ADAGOOR VILLAGE AND POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 116.
VENKATEGOWDA @ VENKATAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
15. NINGARAJU,
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED 37 YEARS.
16. ARUNA,
D/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED 35 YEARS.
APPELLANTS NO.15 AND 16 ARE
R/AT SHRAVANANAHALLI VILLAGE,
AKKIHEBBALU HOBLI,
K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426.
17. JAYANTHI,
W/O SRINIVAS,
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/O THULASI VILLAGE,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. MANJULADEVI R. KAMADOLLI, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:20329
RSA No. 460 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. PARVATHI,
D/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED 49 YEARS,
DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426.
2. KALAMMA,
W/O RANGEGOWDA,
AGED 56 YEARS,
KENCHANAHALLY VILLAGE,
DANDIGANAHALLY HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 116.
SHAMBHAMMA,
W/O JAVAREGOWDA,
DIED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE.
3. SHOBHA,
W/O MANJUNATHA,
AGED 40 YEARS,
R/O JUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 116.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.11.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.5033/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA,
(SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2023 PASSED IN
FDP NO.46/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER ORDER 20 RULE 12 AND SECTION 54 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:20329
RSA No. 460 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is listed for consideration of
I.A.No.1/2025 for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the
appeal and I.A.No.2/2025 for condonation of delay of 843
days in filing the LR application, setting aside the abatement
and for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased
respondent No.3 in R.A. on record.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and also on perusal of the material available on
record, there was a judgment and decree granting the relief
of partition in O.S.No.116/1989 and the decree was passed on
03.09.1993 and the same was challenged before this Court in
R.F.A.No.379/1993 and the same was dismissed on
13.11.2000 and the preliminary decree had attained finality
and thereafter FDP No.46/2009 was filed and the same was
disposed of on 08.06.2023. Being aggrieved by the said
order, R.A. was filed.
3. The main ground urged before the Court is that
the legal representatives were not brought on record and the
said issue was taken note of by the First Appellate Court in
NC: 2025:KHC:20329
HC-KAR
paragraph No.27 that the plaintiffs have claimed their share
only through their father who passed away and defendant
No.2 has nothing to do with the share of Nanjegowda over the
suit schedule properties. The legitimacy of the plaintiffs or
otherwise is not required to be adjudicated now. The grant of
legitimate share to the plaintiffs and defendant No.8 has
reached finality. In paragraph No.28 taken note of that the
suit was of the year 1989 and the same was decreed on
28.08.1993 and R.F.A. was filed before this Court and the
same was dismissed on 13.11.2000 and till date, the plaintiffs
are not able to enjoy the fruits of the decree. The Court also
taken note of the fact that defendant No.2 Shambugowda has
adopted delaying tactics and it has come in the way of the
plaintiffs in enjoying their share in the properties, which they
are entitled to the extent of share of Nanjegowda. The First
Appellate Court in paragraph No.29 taken note of that during
the pendency of the petition, respondent No.3 Shivegowda,
respondent No.5 Puttamma and respondent No.7 Gowramma
were reported to be dead, however, legal representatives are
not brought on record. It has also taken note that except
respondent No.2, no one has filed objections to the petition.
In the absence of the above respondents also, there is no
NC: 2025:KHC:20329
HC-KAR
impediment to allot the share of the petitioners because, they
represent the branch of Nanjegowda through Thimmamma
exclusively. Hence, non-impleading legal representatives of
above respondents is not fatal to the contention of the
petitioners.
4. It is important to note that the case of the
appellants in this appeal is not the contention that they were
not brought on record, but only the legal representatives of
other respondents were not brought on record. The same
cannot be a ground to admit the second appeal and no
prejudice would be caused to the appellants in non-bringing of
the legal representatives of respondent No.3 Shivegowda,
respondent No.5 Puttamma and respondent No.7 Gowramma.
The appellants are squatting on the property and not given
share in terms of the decree of 1993 and the same was
affirmed in 2000 and thereafter also dragged the matter for a
period of 25 years. When such being the case, it is not a case
to issue notice and admit the second appeal and there is no
any substantial question of law only on the ground that the
legal representatives were not brought on record in FDP
NC: 2025:KHC:20329
HC-KAR
proceedings and no prejudice is caused to the appellants in
not bringing the legal representatives of other respondents.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
