[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shivaleela @ Shaila vs Siddalingayya And Ors on 10 March, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2247-DB
RFA No. 200051 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200051 OF 2020 (PAR/DEC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHIVALEELA @ SHAILA
W/O MALLIKARJUNAYYA KALYANMATH,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT (TYPIST),
R/O NO.35, IIND BLOCK, JYOTI NAGAR,
CHANDRA LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI, 80 FEET ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 072.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SIDDALINGAYYA S/O SHIVAPUTRAYYA KALYANMATH,
Digitally signed AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS/REAL ESTATE
by LUCYGRACE BUSINESS, R/O SHIVAKRUPA, VINAYAK NAGAR,
Location: HIGH TALIKOTI ROAD, MUDDEBIHAL,
COURT OF TQ.MUDDEBIHAL, DIST.VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. GOURAMMA W/O SIDDALINGAYYA KALYANMATH,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O C/O S.S.KALYANAMATH,
TALIKOTI ROAD, MUDDEBIHAL,
TQ.MUDDEBIHAL, DIST.VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
3. SHIVAPUTRAYYA S/O SIDDALINGAYYA KALYANMATH,
AGE: MINOR (ABOUT 16 YEARS)
OCC:STUDENT, R/O C/O S.S.KALYANAMATH,
TALIKOTI ROAD, MUDDEBIHAL, TQ.MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST.VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/FATHER
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2247-DB
RFA No. 200051 of 2020
HC-KAR
SIDDLINGAYYA S/O SHIVAPUTRAYYA KALYANMATH,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SHIVAKRUPA, VINAYAK NAGAR,
TALIKOTI ROAD, MUDDEBIHAL,
TQ.MUDDEBIHAL, DIST.VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
4. CHANNAYYA S/O SIDDALINGAYYA KALYANMATH,
AGE: MINOR (ABOUT 14 YEARS,)
OCC: STUDENT, R/O C/O S.S.KALYANAMATH,
TALIKOTI ROAD, MUDDEBIHAL,
TQ.MUDDEBIHAL, DIST.VIJAYAPUR-586 212
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/FATHER
SIDDLINGAYYA S/O SHIVAPUTRAYYA KALYANMATH,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SHIVAKRUPA, VINAYAK NAGAR,
TALIKOTI ROAD, MUDDEBIHAL,
TQ.MUDDEBIHAL, DIST.VIJAYAPUR-586 212
5. SMT. SHARADA W/O BASAYYA SALIMATH,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
6. SMT. GURUDEVI W/O RAJASHEKHAR KALYANMATH,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
7. SATISH S/O REVANSIDDAPPA KENDHULI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
8. SHIVAPPA S/O SANGANBASAPPA VAIJAPUR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
9. KATTEPPA S/O YALLAPPA UKKALI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
10. GURURAO S/O BIMARAO KULKARNI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
11. JAYASHREE W/O JAYARAM LAMANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2247-DB
RFA No. 200051 of 2020
HC-KAR
12. SHARANAPPA S/O SANGANABASAPPA HOLE,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
13. PRAVEEN W/O AYYUM MANIYAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
14. KHUDANSA S/O KASHIMSAB KASAAB,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
15. NEELKANTHAYYA S/O GADIGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: VIJAYAPUR-586 212.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R7 ARE SERVED;
(R3 & R4 ARE MINOR)
R13 IS SERVED;
V/O DATED 13.03.2025 NOTICE TO R8 TO R12,
R14 & R15 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.12.2019
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MUDDEBIHAL, ALLOWING
I.A.NO.VII AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING O.S.NO.18/2016 AND
FURTHER REMAND THE SAID MATTER TO THE TRAIL COURT WITH A
DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2247-DB
RFA No. 200051 of 2020
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The appellant is before this Court seeking the
following relief:-
"To allow this appeal and set-aside the impugned
order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge, at Muddebihal, allowing I.A.No.VII and
consequently, dismissing O.S.No.18/2016 and further
remand the said matter to the Trail Court with a
direction to decide the same on merits."
2. I.A. No.1/2026 has been filed by the appellant
seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the above
appeal as well as the suit, with liberty to initiate final
decree proceedings based on the decree passed in
O.S. No.234/2001 dated 20.11.2001 by the Court of
the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muddebihal.
3. A perusal of the record indicates that the suit in O.S.
No.234/2001 had been instituted seeking to reopen
the compromise decree dated 20.11.2001 and for a
declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of
the western portion of the land measuring 10 acres
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2247-DB
HC-KAR
02 guntas in R.S. No.88 of Kavaliimatti Village,
Muddebihal Taluk. Thus, the principal relief sought in
the suit was to challenge and reopen the compromise
decree which had earlier been passed between the
parties.
4. In the said suit proceedings, the defendants had filed
an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the
plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law.
The Trial Court, upon consideration of the said
application, allowed the same by its order dated
03.12.2019, thereby rejecting the plaint. It is the
said order which is under challenge in the present
appeal.
5. However, by filing the present application I.A.
No.1/2026, the appellant has now sought permission
to withdraw the appeal and the suit itself with liberty
to initiate final decree proceedings in terms of the
compromise decree dated 20.11.2001 passed in O.S.
No.234/2001. The tenor of the application would
clearly indicate that the appellant is no longer
interested in pursuing the challenge to the
compromise decree but instead seeks to proceed on
the basis that the said decree is valid and capable of
being executed or implemented through final decree
proceedings.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2247-DB
HC-KAR
6. If that be the position, the very foundation of the
challenge raised in the suit and consequently in the
present appeal does not survive for consideration.
The relief now sought by the appellant is in the
nature of implementation of the compromise decree
itself, which necessarily implies that the appellant no
longer seeks to reopen or invalidate the said decree.
7. In view of the submission made and the application
filed seeking withdrawal of the appeal with liberty as
stated above, the prayer made in I.A. No.1/2026
deserves to be accepted.
8. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the appellant to
initiate appropriate final decree proceedings in terms
of the decree dated 20.11.2001 passed in O.S.
No.234/2001, if so advised and in accordance with
law.
9. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of
as withdrawn, reserving the aforesaid liberty.
Consequently, I.A. No.1/2026 also stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
KJJ
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6
CT:SI
