Karnataka High Court
Smt S K Kalavathi vs Sri. T.R. Jayanna on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21770
WP No. 46190 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 46190 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. S.K. KALAVATHI
W/O SRI. B.N. SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT 4TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR
TUMAKURU CITY-572 101
NOW PRESENTLY R/AT NO.648
12TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA
BENGALURU-560 040
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH GOUDA FOR
SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1.
by ANJALI M SRI. T.R. JAYANNA
Location: HIGH W/O SRI. RAMAIAH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
KARNATAKA
R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION
ALASETTIKEREPALYA
BANASHANKARI EXTENSION
TUMKUR CITY-572 101
2. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O SRI. T.R. JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION
ALASETTIKEREPALYA
BANASHANKARI EXTENSION
TUMKUR CITY-572 101
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21770
WP No. 46190 of 2019
HC-KAR
3. SMT. KALAVATHI
D/O SRI. T.R. JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION
ALASETTIKEREPALYA
BANASHANKARI EXTENSION
TUMKUR CITY-572 101
4. SMT. ARUNAKSHAMMA
D/O SRI. T.R.JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION
ALASETTIKEREPALYA
BANASHANKARI EXTENSION
TUMKUR CITY-572 101
5. SRI. NAGARAJU
D/O SRI. T.R.JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION
ALASETTIKEREPALYA
BANASHANKARI EXTENSION
TUMKUR CITY-572 101
6. SRI. DHARMAIAH
D/O SRI. T.R.JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION
ALASETTIKEREPALYA
BANASHANKARI EXTENSION
TUMKUR CITY-572 101
7. SRI. UMESH
D/O SRI. T.R.JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT TUMAKURU CITY RAILWAY STATION
ALASETTIKEREPALYA
BANASHANKARI EXTENSION
TUMKUR CITY-572 101
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21770
WP No. 46190 of 2019
HC-KAR
8. SRI. A. CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE ANJIANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT DEVEERAPALLI VILLAGE
DEVEERAPALLI POST, HOSUR TALUK
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT
TAMILNADU STATE-635 103
SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
SINCE DIED REPRESENTED BY ITS LRS
9(A). SRI. T.B. ANANTHAKUMAR
S/O SRI. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT SEEBITHOTA, BEHIND
TUMAKURU AMANIKERE
TUMAKURU CITY-572 101
9(B) SRI. T. TULASIDEVI
W/O SRI. VENKACHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT. C/O NAGANNA BUILDING
DOOR NO.695, GANESHA SAW
MILL ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 057
9(C). SMT. T.B. KAMALA
W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.322, NEAR SHIVAJI DEPOT
1ST MAIN ROAD, T.DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 057
9(D). SRI. B.T. LOKESH
S/O SRI. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT DASANAPALYA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:21770
WP No. 46190 of 2019
HC-KAR
CHIKKABANAVARA
BENGALURU-560 090
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. MADHUSUDAN FOR
SRI. V. VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R8;
R9(B) - SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.08.2023 R9(C)
IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2018 IN CIVIL
MISC.NO.100/2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU, AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"1. Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other
Writ to quash the impugned order dated
19.02.2018 in Civil Misc.No.100/2016
passed by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge at Tumakuru as per
Annexure-E, in the interest of justice and
equity.
2. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit and necessary to grant
under circumstances of the above writ
NC: 2025:KHC:21770
HC-KAR
petition, in the interest of justice and
equity."
2. Heard.
3. Sri Ganesh Gouda, Advocate appearing for Sri
Nagendra Kumar K., learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that, the petitioner has filed OS No.268/2006
seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale
dated 12.05.1998. It is submitted that one
Smt.Puttalakshmamma has also filed a suit for specific
performance in OS No.162/2000 and knowing the same,
the petitioner has filed an application in Civil Misc.
No.100/2016 seeking for transfer of OS 162/2000 pending
on the file of Principal Sr.Civil Judge (S.D),Tumakuru and
OS No.268/2006 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Tumakuru to any one of the Courts by allowing the
petition. However, the same came to be dismissed on the
ground of delay.
4. Per contra, Sri M. Madhusudan, learned counsel
for Sri V.Viswanath Setty, learned counsel for the
NC: 2025:KHC:21770
HC-KAR
respondent Nos.2 to 8 submits that the suit filed by
Smt.Puttalakshmamma in OS No.162/2000 came to be
dismissed on 28.06.2023 and thereafter, the legal heirs
[R9(c) and R9(d)] of Smt.Puttalakshmamma filed RA
No.103/2023 and the said appeal was allowed and
judgment and decree dated 28.06.2023 passed in OS
No.162/2000 was set aside and the matter was remanded
for limited purpose. He submits that in view of the
dismissal of the suit and later remand by the appellate
Court in RA No.103/2023, the present petition would not
survive for consideration.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and
perused the material on record.
6. The petitioner filed an application in Civil Misc.
No.100/2016 under Section 22 of Code of Civil Procedure
before the Principal District Judge, Tumkuru seeking to
transfer OS No.162/2000 pending on the file of Principal
NC: 2025:KHC:21770
HC-KAR
Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru and OS No.268/2006
pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Tumakuru to any one of the Courts to decide both the
cases together to avoid conflicting decisions.
7. However, it is pointed out that OS No.162/2000
came to be dismissed vide Judgment and Decree dated
28.06.2023 and thereafter, the legal heirs of original
plaintiff filed an appeal in RA No.103/2023 which came to
be allowed on 25.01.2025 and the matter came to be
remanded to the trail Court to reconsider the same on
certain issues.
8. In my considered view, in view of the subsequent
developments and the remand by the appellate Court, the
present petition would not survive for consideration.
Hence, the same is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
SK
