Karnataka High Court
Nagarathnamma vs Sri Narasimha Murthy N V on 3 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
RSA No. 2206 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2206 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O RAJANNA
D/O LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A MOODALAPALYA
SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DIST
BANGALORE - 562 120.
2. SMT. HANUMAKKA
W/O HANUMANTHARAJU
D/O LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT BETTAHALLIPALYA
KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 120.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA M R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY N V
KARNATAKA S/O LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
SRI. HANUMEGOWDA
(SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.)
2. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O. LATE HANUMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
3. N.H. PAVITHRA
D/O. LATE HANUMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
RSA No. 2206 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE VEERAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
S/O. LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
ABOVE 1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NAGARURU VILLAGE
DASANAPURA HOBLI AND POST
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 123.
6. SMT. M.SUMITHRA
D/O. C.MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.2910,
2ND STAGE, RAJAJI NAGAR
BANGALORE
7. SRI. JAIKUMAR
S/O. LATE VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NAGARURU VILLAGE
DASANAPURA HOBLI AND POST
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 123.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2023 PASSED BY THE FIRST
APPELLATE COURT IN RA.NO.115/2019 ON THE FILE OF VIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
COURT AT BENGALURU, AND CONSEQUENTLY MOIDIFY JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.317/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT NELAMANGALA
AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
RSA No. 2206 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard appellants'
counsel.
2. This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent
findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court in
rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 of
the suit schedule property.
3. The trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated
07.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.317/2011, while granting the
relief in respect of Item Nos.2 to 7, declined to grant the relief
in respect of Item No. 1, wherein the trial Court in paragraph
No.18, categorically held that the property originally belongs to
one Veerappa, who is the father of the plaintiffs and defendant
Nos.1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.4. On 01.02.1992,
Veerappa and his sons have jointly executed an agreement of
sale in favour of defendant No.5 with respect to Item No.1 of
the suit schedule property. Veerappa and his sons have not
come forward to execute the registered sale deed as per the
agreement of sale dated 01.02.1992. Therefore, the defendant
No.5 had filed a suit in O.S. No.469/1994 seeking the relief of
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
HC-KAR
specific performance. The said suit was decreed. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, RFA No.481/2003
was filed before the High Court of Karnataka. The said Regular
First Appeal was ended with the compromise and additional
consideration of Rs.70,000/- was paid by defendant No.5.
Even after that, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 have
not come forward to execute the registered sale deed, then,
the defendant No.5 initiated the execution proceedings and got
the sale deed executed through the Court in respect of Item
No.1 of the suit schedule property. Hence, Item No.1 of the
suit schedule property is not an ancestral property of the
plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4, to grant any relief and the
trial Court granted the relief in respect of other items and
dismissed the suit.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
an appeal was filed in R.A.No.115/2019. After having
considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, the first
Appellate Court also formulated the points - Whether the
Learned Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala is justified in partly
decreeing the suit and Whether it requires interference of the
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
HC-KAR
Court. The first Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of both
oral and documentary evidence, particularly taking into note of
the documents which have been relied upon by the plaintiffs, in
paragraph No.21, comes to the conclusion that a sale
agreement was executed by Veerappa and his sons in the year
1992 relating to the property bearing Survey No.79/2. The
plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 in
O.S.No.317/2011 have challenged the claim by filing their
written statement. The trial Court, after holding a trial, has
decreed the suit on 03.12.2002. The first Appellate Court also,
in paragraph No.22, taken note that R.F.A.No.481/2003 filed
before the High Court ended in a compromise as the parties
had filed a joint memo agreeing to receive the additional
amount of Rs.70,000/- from the respondent / defendant No.5 -
Smt. Sumitra and thereby requested the Court to dismiss the
appeal. The High Court having taken note of the joint memo,
dismissed the R.F.A.No.481/2003 on 19.11.2003. Having
considered the judgment and decree and also the RFA's
dismissal and also an observation was made that when the
appellants along with their other family members have settled
the dispute before the High Court of Karnataka, then, they
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
HC-KAR
cannot claim any share in respect of Item No.1 property, which
is the subject matter of O.S. No.469/1994. If the appellants
are aggrieved by the judgment passed in R.F.A. No.481/2003,
then they have to challenge the same. Instead of challenging
the same, they cannot file the present suit. It is also
important to note that the suit was filed in the year 2011.
Though there was an earlier appeal, the same was dismissed in
the year 2003 and hence, the first Appellate Court observed
that it is nothing but an abuse of process of law and confirmed
the judgment of the trial Court.
5. Now, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would vehemently contend that both the Courts have
committed an error in dismissing the suit in respect of Item
No.1 property and also learned counsel would contend that the
reasoning given by both the Courts is not justified and
contended that they are not the parties to the agreement and
also whether the judgment and decree will sustain without
answering all issues and whether the sale deed executed,
pending adjudication of the suit, is valid and will it curtail the
rights of the appellants, have to be considered by this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
HC-KAR
6. Having considered the grounds which have been
urged in this Second Appeal and also on consideration of the
material available on record, it is clear that the trial Court has
rightly come to the conclusion, in paragraph No.18, that there
was a sale agreement and Veerappa and his sons have
executed the sale agreement and consequently, the defendant
No.5 filed a suit for specific performance and the decree was
granted and the same was assailed in RFA No.481/2003 before
this Court. The said Regular First Appeal was ended with the
compromise and an additional consideration of Rs.70,000/- was
received by the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and they
filed a joint memo and got dismissed the appeal. Thereafter,
even then, they did not come forward to execute the registered
sale deed, hence, an execution petition was filed and got the
sale deed executed and the same was also taken note of by the
trial Court and the Appellate Court also, while confirming the
judgment in paragraph No.22, discussed in detail regarding the
said material and apart from that, the appellants and their
family members have not challenged the judgment passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in R.F.A.No.481/2003.
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
HC-KAR
Since the same was disposed of in the year 2003, but the suit
was filed in 2011, it is nothing but an attempt made to extort
the money from the respondents and when the earlier
judgment and decree was passed in favour of defendant No.5
and the same was upheld in the appeal wherein they received
the additional amount of Rs.70,000/- and subsequently, as an
afterthought, filed the suit for the relief of the partition and the
trial Court rightly granted the relief in respect of Item Nos.2 to
7 and in respect of Item No.1, declined to grant the relief, since
the same was not the ancestral property and there was a sale
in favour of the defendant No.5 in respect of Item No.1
property, the same was also got registered through Court.
When the appellants and their family members have received
the additional amount before this Court and got withdrew the
earlier RFA in the year 2003 itself and when such being the
case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any
substantial question of law in respect of Item No.1 property is
concerned and in view of the same, no ground is made out to
invoke Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
NC: 2025:KHC:44044
HC-KAR
8. In view of the discussions made above, as a
consequential order, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal,
pending I.A., does not survive for consideration and the same
is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Bss
