Karnataka High Court
T Parameshwara Bhatta vs K R Rajeevalochana on 31 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43935
RSA No. 482 of 2013
C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2013 (RES)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 461 OF 2013
IN RSA No. 482/2013
BETWEEN:
1. T PARAMESHWARA BHATTA
SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS.,
Digitally 1(A) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
signed by W/O T. PARAMESHWARA BHATTA,
SUNITHA K S
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
Location: R/O SRINGERI TOWN.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 1(B) T NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE T. PRAMESHWRA BHATTA,
R/O SRINGERI TOWN.
1(C) T JAGADISH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE T.PRAMESHWRA BHATTA,
R/O SRINGERI TOWN.
4. T P UMESH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43935
RSA No. 482 of 2013
C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013
HC-KAR
S/O LATE T.PRAMESHWRA BHATTA,
R/O SRINGERI TOWN.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K N SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K R RAJEEVALOCHANA
S/O LATE K.V. RAMAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O HENCHINAMANE,
MASIGE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
SRINGERI TALUK.
2. SMT K R RAMAMANI
W/O K.R. RAJEEVALOCHANA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O HENCHINAMANE,
MASIGE VILLGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
SRINGERI TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. V. VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2012 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.79/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT, CHIKKAMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 29.6.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/2006 ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) SRINGERI.
IN RSA NO. 461/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T P UMESH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43935
RSA No. 482 of 2013
C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013
HC-KAR
S/O LATE T PARAMESHWARA BHATTA
RESIDING AT SRINGERI TOWN
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI K R RAJEEVALOCHANA
AGED ABOUT 44 EYARS
S/O LATE K V RAMAPAIAH
RESIDING AT HENCHINAMANE,
MASIGE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, SRINGERI TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
2. SMT RAMAMANI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O SRI K R RAJEEVALOCHANA
RESIDING AT HENCHINAMANE
MASIGE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, SRINGERI TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
3. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
W/O LATE T PARAMESHWARA BHATTA
RESIDING AT SRINGERI TOWN
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
(AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 13.09.2022,
APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1,2,4,5 ARE THE LRS OF
DECEASED R3)
4. SRI T NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
W/O LATE T PARAMESHWARA BHATTA
RESIDING AT SRINGERI TOWN
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43935
RSA No. 482 of 2013
C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013
HC-KAR
5. SRI T JAGADISH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O LATE T PARAMESHWARA BHATTA
RESIDING AT SRINGERI TOWN
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. V. VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
SRI. K.N. SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5
V/O DATED 13.09.2022 APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS
1,2,4,5 ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD 12.12.2012 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.79/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT, CHIKMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DTD 29.6.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.40/2006 ON THE FILE
OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), SRINGERE.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:43935
RSA No. 482 of 2013
C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants filed a memo for withdrawal in both
the appeals, which reads as follows:
"1. The Appellant herein had preferred the above
Second Appeal against the Respondents seeking to
set aside the judgment and decree dated
12.12.2012 passed in R.A. No. 79/2010 on the file
of the Court of the Fast Track Judge,
Chikkamagaluru, which had confirmed the
judgment and decree dated 26.09.2009 in O.S.
No. 40/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.
Div.), Sringeri, and consequently to allow the suit
with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Plaintiff, Sri T. Prameshwara Bhat, along
with his wife and sons, had executed a registered
partition deed dated 15.10.1999. Under the said
deed, the third son, Sri T. P. Umesh (the present
Appellant No. 1(d) and Plaintiff No. 1(d) in the
original suit), was allotted a comparatively lesser
share.
3. In view of the same, it was mutually agreed
between the parties that the following suit
schedule properties, measuring 0.12 acres, would
be retained as life interest properties in favor of
both the parents, and upon their demise, the
said properties would devolve absolutely upon
Sri T. P. Umesh:
guntas (Akara Rs. 1.20), situated at Teri, Sringeri
Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Sringeri Taluk.
NC: 2025:KHC:43935
HC-KAR
guntas (Akara Rs. 1.68), situated at Teri, Sringeri
Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Sringeri Taluk.
The plaintiff's daughter, Smt. K. R. Ramamani
(Defendant No. 2), was a witness to the said
partition deed.
4. Subsequently, when the plaintiff became aged
(around 90 years) and was in a feeble
physical and mental condition, the 1st Defendant
Sri K. R. Rajeevalochana (son-in-law) and the 2nd
Defendant Smt. K. R. Ramamani (daughter), by
means of fraud, coercion, and misrepresentation,
obtained a registered sale deed dated 29.06.2006
in favor of the 1st Defendant, despite the fact that
the plaintiff held only a life interest and the
absolute right in the properties was to vest with
Sri T. P. Umesh after the demise of both parents.
5. The plaintiff thereafter instituted O.S. No.
40/2006 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sringeri,
seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated
29.06.2006, along with possession and mesne
profits, contending that the said sale deed was
void, illegal, and obtained by fraud and coercion.
The defendants entered appearance and
contended that the suit was not maintainable and
that the sale was a valid transaction, denying the
allegations of fraud.
6. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sringeri, after
hearing both parties, dismissed the suit by
judgment and decree dated 29.06.2009.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff
preferred R.A. No. 79/2010 before the Fast Track
Court, Chikkamagaluru, which, after hearing both
sides, dismissed the appeal on 12.12.2012,
thereby confirming the judgment and decree of
the trial court. Aggrieved by the concurrent
NC: 2025:KHC:43935
HC-KAR
findings, the present Regular Second Appeal came
to be filed before this Hon'ble Court.
8. It is now respectfully submitted that the
registered sale deed dated 29.06.2006 in favor of
the 1st Defendant was executed solely by
Sri T. Prameshwara Bhat, even though the said
properties were jointly owned by him and his wife,
Smt. Lakshmamma. It is pertinent to note that
Smt. Lakshmamma was not a party or vendor to
the said sale deed.
9. The Appellant, upon becoming fully aware of
these material facts and the attendant legal
implications, now intends to initiate appropriate
legal proceedings to assert and secure the said
vested share of Smt. Lakshmamma by instituting a
fresh, independent suit in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Appellant reserves his liberty to
take recourse to such independent proceedings
under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read
with Order XXIII Rule 1 and Order II Rule 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without prejudice to
the rights and contentions available to him in law
and on facts.
10. In light of the above developments and to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Appellant
humbly seeks permission to withdraw the present
Regular Second Appeal, with liberty to institute a
fresh suit for declaration and other consequential
reliefs in accordance with law.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Appellants most respectfully
pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Permit the Appellants to withdraw the present
appeal so as to enable him to institute properly
NC: 2025:KHC:43935
HC-KAR
constituted and comprehensive suit for seeking
appropriate reliefs in respect of the subject
matter; and
b) Grant liberty to the Appellants to institute a
fresh and independent suit in accordance with law,
by extending such leave under Order II Rule 2 and
Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
1963, to seek appropriate reliefs concerning the
suit schedule properties, in the interest of justice
and equity."
2. Memo is taken on record in both the appeals.
3. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the
appeals with liberty to institute a partition and separate
possession suit regarding the share of the mother of the
appellants in the property acquired by her under the
partition deed marked as Ex.P2.
4. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as
withdrawn with a liberty to the legal representatives of
the deceased appellant to institute a fresh and
comprehensive suit regarding the property owned and
possessed by the wife of the deceased appellant and
NC: 2025:KHC:43935
HC-KAR
mother of legal representatives of the deceased appellant
as per the partition deed vide Ex.P2.
5. If such a suit is filed by the legal
representatives of the appellants, all the contentions of the
parties are kept open.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
SKS
CT:KHV
