Karnataka High Court
Patel Revanna vs Narasimhaiah on 25 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.892 OF 2025 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
PATEL REVANNA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
1. MANGALAMMA,
W/O PATEL REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
2. D.R. SHANTHAMALLAIAH
S/O PATEL REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
3. D.R. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O PATEL REVANNA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 4. D.R. BASAVARAJU
COURT OF S/O PATEL REVANNA,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT WARD NO.35,
DEVARAYAPATTANA,
TUMAKURU -572104.
5. SHYLAJA
D/O PATEL REVANNA,
W/O K.H. MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. GEETHA
D/O PATEL REVANNA,
W/O SHIVAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE
R/AT VIDYANAGARA,
TUMAKURU-572103.
H. HONNAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
7. RATHNAMMA N.S ,
W/O LATE HONNAPPA H,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
8. KOMALA H,
D/O LATE HONNAPPA H,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
9. SHWETHA H,
D/O LATE HONNAPPA H,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
10. SHARATHKUMAR H,
S/O LATE HONNAPPA H,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.7 TO 10 ARE
R/AT WARD NO.35,
DEVARAYAPATTANA,
TUMAKURU-572104.
PATEL D.M. SIDDAMALLAIAH,
SINCE DEADY BY HIS LRS.
11. D.S.CHANNAMALLEGOWDA
S/O PATEL D.M. SIDDAMALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
D.S. SHIVAKUMAR,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
12. SARVAMANGALA
W/O LATE D.S.SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
13. MANASA D.S.
D/O LATE D.S. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
14. HARSHA D.S.
S/O LATE D.S. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
15. HEMANTHKUMAR D.S.
S/O LATE D.S. SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.11 TO 15 ARE
R/AT C/O CHANNAMALLEGOWDA,
WARD NO. 35, DEVARAYAPATTANA,
TUMAKURU - 572 104.
16. D.S. SHADAKSHARI
S/O PATEL D.M.SIDDAMALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
17. D.S. JAGADEESH
S/O PATEL D.M. SIDDAMALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ALL ARE
R/AT WARD NO. 35,
DEVARAYAPATTANA,
TUMAKURU-572 104.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
NARASIMHAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
NARASIMHAMURTHY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
1. MANGALAGOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
2. NAGARATHNAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
3. SHANKARAMURTHY
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4. MANJULA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
5. PARAMESHWARA
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT KUNDURU VILLAGE,
DEVARAYAPATTANA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND
DISTRICT-572104.
6. NARASAMMA
W/O VENKATACHALAIAH,
AGEDA BOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT KUNDURU VILLAGE,
DEVARAYAPATTANA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.
7. GANGANNA
S/O HANUMAIAH,
AGED: MAJOR,
R/AT KUNDUR VILLAGE,
DEVARAYAPATTANA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND
DISTRICT 572 104.
8. SUGNANA MURTHY
S/O SHANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT KANNURU VILLAGE,
MARASANDRA POST,
KUDURU HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAKUMAR V.C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R8;
SRI. B.M. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.31/2007 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 10.03.2000 PASSED IN O.S.NO.203/1986 ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
RSA No. 892 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Court heard the matter in length and also
suggested with regard to the imposition of cost to the
learned counsel for the appellants since, the matter even
though remanded earlier twice and again seeking for
remand for not adducing the additional evidence and also
said that exemplary cost will be imposed to the tune of
Rs.1,00,000/-. The counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the same has to be reduced since the
appellants are before this Court twice and earlier also they
had approached the Court by filing R.S.A and again before
this Court and having taken note of the said fact into
consideration and also matter was remanded in MSA as
well as in R.S.A and inspite of specific direction, appellants
have not adduced the evidence before the First Appellate
Court.
2. Having perused the records also, when the
relief is sought for temporary injunction, this Court while
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
HC-KAR
disposing the R.S.A, directed to file necessary application
before the First Appellate Court and after Appellate Court
without deciding the said applications, considered the
same along with the main appeal. Apart from that when
the application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for
amendment seeking the possession, since earlier also the
suit was dismissed on the ground that possession is not
sought. When such being the case, the Appellate Court
also ought to have taken note of the reliefs which have
been sought in the said applications for amendment as
well as temporary injunction, instead of considering the
same, the Appellate Court heard the appeal along with the
applications which are pending. Even the First Appellate
Court not discussed anything about when the counter
claim is filed whether the same is filed within time and no
discussion at all while answering the point No.6 as well as
the Order Sheet clearly discloses that in view of the
direction given by this Court also, Appellate Court
hurriedly disposed of the matter by considering the
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
HC-KAR
applications along with main appeal. Hence, matter
requires to be remitted back to the First Appellate Court
by setting aside the order of the First Appellate Court in
view of the observations made by this Court with a specific
direction to consider the I.A.No.20, 21 and 22 and then
the Appellate Court to decide the matter on merits.
3. The appellants are directed to adduce the
additional evidence as earlier observed in the earlier R.S.A
and the Appellate Court is also directed to give an
opportunity to both the parties with regard to adduce the
additional evidence if any by both the parties and then
decide the same.
4. Having taken note of the discussion made
above and also the conduct of the appellants and also
approaching this Court repeatedly even inspite of specific
direction is given, not complied with the order of this
Court, it is appropriate to impose the exemplary cost of
Rs.75,000/- and out of that Rs.10,000/- is payable to the
respondents and remaining amount is vest with the State.
NC: 2025:KHC:48876
HC-KAR
The cost is payable within 2 weeks from today and only on
depositing of cost, this appeal could be restored and
consider the matter afresh in view of the observation
made by this Court.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the
First Appellate Court on 19.12.2025 without expecting any
notice from the First Appellate Court.
6. The Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the
appeal within 6 months from the date of 19.12.2025 in
keeping the observation.
7. The respective parties and also the counsels are
directed to assist the First Appellate Court to dispose of
the appeal within stipulated time. The Appellate Court is
directed to take up the matter day to day basis
immediately after the winter vacation-2025 since the suit
is of the year 2006.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
