The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.137 OF 2011 (DEC) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.406 OF 2011 (DEC/POS) IN R.F.A. NO.137 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. 2. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577201. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAGAR SUB-DIVISION, SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577401. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA … APPELLANTS (BY SRI KIRAN V. RON, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI G.S. ARUNA, HCGP) AND: 1. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O HONNAPPA, HINDU, AGE: 60 YEARS, R/AT CHITTURARA HOUSE HARALENNE KERI, SHIKARIPURA TOWN, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577427. SINCE DEAD BY LR’s. 1(a) SRI BASAVARAJAPPA S/O. LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, MAJOR, 1(b) SRI REVANAPPA S/O. LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, MAJOR, 1(c) SRI RAGHU S/O. LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, MAJOR, 1(d) SRI MALLIKARJUNA C.S. S/O. LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, MAJOR, (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07/04/2015) ALL ARE RESIDING AT HARALENNE KERI, SRIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577427. 2. 3. DEVENDRAPPA S/O SIDDESHWARAPPA HINDU, HINDU, AGE: 38 YEARS, CHITTUR HOUSE, R/O HOSAMADARA KERI, SHIKARIPURA TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577427. LOKESHA S/O SANKRI SIDDAPPA, HINDU, AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O HARALENNE KERI, SHIKARIPURA TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577427. 4. THE CHIEF OFFICER, PURASHABHA, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577427. … RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 (BY SRI BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1(A TO D) & R-2; SRI SUDHARSHAN SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI CHANDRAKANTH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.07/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC., SORABA, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION. IN R.F.A. NO.406 OF 2011 BETWEEN: THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHIKARIPUR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, REP. BY CHIEF OFFICER. (BY SRI G. KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. G.K. BHAVANA, ADVOCATE) … APPELLANT AND: 1. 2. 3. 4. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O HONNAPPA CHITTOR MANE, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, HARALENNE KEERI, SHIKARIPUR TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SHRI DEVENDRAPPA S/O SIDDESWARAPPA CHITTOR MANE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RES. OF HOSAMADHARA KEERI, SHIKARIPUR TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIFONER, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAGAR SUB DIVISION, SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. YANGAPPA NAIDU, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, ACHARE, RES. AVATEKOPPA SHIKARIPUR TALUK. D.S. SRIKANTAIAH S/O LATE SIDDARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RES. SHANTINAGAR, SHIKARIPUR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. P. SUBRAYA AITHAL S/O RAMA AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, NEW RAGHAVENDRA BHAWAN, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. K. JANARDHANAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, KAPPANAHALLI, PO: KAPPANAHALLI, SHIKARIPUR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. K. GANGADHARA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, KAPPANAHALLI, PO: KAPPANAHALLI, SHIKARIPUR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. K.H. SANJEEVA NAIDU S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, KAPPANAHALLI, PO: KAPPANAHALLI, SHIKARIPUR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 12. K.H. KESHAVA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 13. 14. 15. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, KAPPANAHALLI, PO: KAPPANAHALLI SHIKARIPUR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. T.H. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OWNER: SANGAMESWARA SAWMILL, SHISHUVIHARA ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. MUDDANAHALLI RUDRAPPA S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SHISHUVIHARA ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O ULLI SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS SHISHUVIHARA ROAD, SHIKARIPUR, SINCE DECEASED BY LR: 15(a) GANGADHARA S/O ULLI SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SHISHUVIHARA ROAD, SHIKARIPUR (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.15) 16. 17. 18. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O ANANDA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OWNER: VIJAYALAKSHMI MOTOR SERVICE, SHISHUVIHAR ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. H. MAHADEVAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SHISHUVIHARA ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. H. UDAYAKUMAR S/O HALAKATI MURUGESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 19. 19(a) 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. SHISHUVIHARA ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. H. MURUGESHAPPA S/O HALAKATI BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS SHISHUVIHARA ROAD, SHIKARIPUR, SINCE DCECEASED BY LR: PUTTAPPA S/O MURUGESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, VEERABHADRESWARA PROVISION STORE, PETROL BUNK ROAD, SHIKARIPUR (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.19) H. KASHINATHA S/O HALAKATTI MURUGESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SHISHUVIHARA ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. S.T. ANASUYAMMA W/O D. THANDAVA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SHISHUVIHARA ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. K.B. SHIVAPPAIAH S/O VIRUPAKSHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, EESUR VILLAGE, SHIKARIPUR TALUK. K.B. RUDRAPPAIAH S/O VIRUPAKSHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, CHANNAKESHAVA NAGARA, SHIKARIPUR. K.B. RAJASHEKARAIAH S/O VIRUPAKSHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, EESUR VILLAGE, SHIKARIPUR TALUK. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. DR. H. SHIVAKUMAR S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SMT. KAMALA W/O SOHAN RAJ, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. H. NARAYANA RAO S/O BACHCHAIAH SHETTIGAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, P.B. ROAD, NEW RAGHAVENDRA BHAVANA, SHIKARIPUR. H. KRISHNA SHETTIGAR S/O BACHCHAIAH SHETTIGAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, P.B. ROAD, NEW RAGHAVENDRA BAHVANA, SHIKARIPUR. R. PANDURANGA S/O RAJAPPA GURU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. THE SECRETARY, CHARAKA AND KHADI GRAMODHYOGA SANGHA, KHANDI MANDIRA, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SMT. HALAMMA W/O DUDIHALLI KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, VIRABHADRESWARA PROVISION STORES, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. S.N. NARAYANA RAO, S/O HUCHCHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SANDA VILLAGE, PO: HARAGUVALLI, SHIKARIPUR. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
Legal Reasoning
SMT. S.N. NAGARATHNA, W/O NAGARAJA SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, POOJA ICE CREAM, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. H. MURUGAPPA, S/O VEERABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. M. KALLAPPA GOWDA, S/O ADAVAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, SIDDESWARA LODGE, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. ASHOK KUMAR GOGI, S/O KUBERAPPA GOGI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. B. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE BINDAPPA GOWLI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OPP: RAJASHEKARA TALKIES, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SIDDALINGESHA, S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, VEERABHADRESWARA STORES, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. T. KOTRAPPA, FATHER’S NAME: NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HONNALI ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. 40. SMT. LAKSHMI BAI, W/O D. BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. SWAGAT MEDICAL STORES, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SMT. AKTHAR BEGUM, W/O SHEIK MUBEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, KANUR DURGAMMA GUDIKERI, SHIKARIPUR. DR. SUNDAR SHETTY, S/O SHAMARAYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RAGHAVENDRA CLINIC, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. RAKUNDI NAGARAJA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. RAKUNDI KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. H. JAYADEVAPPA, S/O MRUTHYUNJAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. H.N. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O HOLE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, VINAYAKA RICE MILL OWNER, BEHIND MESCOM OFFICE, S.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. Y. SHANKAR, S/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. 48. H. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, S/O GURULINGAPPA, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, CHANDRU STORES, P.B. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SUBBA RAO KATAVKAR, S/O GANAPATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NEAR BUS STAND, SHIKARIPUR. SHIVAPPA SHASTRY, S/O LATE GURUPPA SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, MEDICAL STORES OWNER, RES. DODDAPETE, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. BASAVARAJAPPA SHASTRY, S/O LATE GURUPPA SHASTRY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RES. DODDAPETE, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. HARIHARADA PARAMESWARAPPA, S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. PARASMAL, FATHER’S NAME: NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SMT. RAMA BAI, W/O SUBRAYA SANU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, JEWELERS, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. 55. GANAPATHI, S/O GOVINDA THANU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 56. 56(a) 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. JEWELERS, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. T.R. PAPANNA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WINE STORES, SANTE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SINCE DECEASED BY LR. T.R. PRAKASH S/O. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WINE STORES, SANTE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.56) T.R. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WINE STORES, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. CHANNABASAPPA, S/O SIDDARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. GOVINDAPPA, RETIRED TEACHER, FATHER’S NAME: NOT KNOWN, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. JAGANNATHA, S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RES. HOSA GODDANAKOPPA, PO: NELAVAGILU, SHIKARIPUR TALUK. B. RAGHAVENERA, S/O B. LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NAVEEN ELECTRONICS, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. N. NIJALINGAPPA S/O MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. M. RUDRAPPA S/O MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SMT. H.M. SAVITHRAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. BHAWAR SINGH S/O HANUMANTH JI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, DURGA FANCY STORES, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SIDDIQUI MOHAMMED LIYAKATHULLA FATHER’S NAME: NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. SUBBANNA S/O JEEVANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. S.N. SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O HUCHCHA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SANTHE MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPUR. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. K. KRISHNA RAO FATHER’S NAME: NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. M. MAHESWARAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. SMT. KAMALA BAI W/O SHIVAJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. M. PARAMESWARAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. SMT. SHARADA W/O DEVANANDAPPA, AGED MAJOR, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. A. VENKATA S/O K. GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. SINCE DECEASED BY LR: 75(a) K. PALAIAH S/O. A. VENKATA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, BUS STAND AREA, SHIKARIPUR. (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.75) - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 76. 77. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O OBALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. NARASIMHAIAH S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA. SINCE DECEASED BY LR: 77(a) DODDAIAH S/O NARASIMHAIA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, BUS STAND AREA, SHIKARIPUR (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.77) 78. CHIKKA PANCHALAIAH S/O NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. SINCE DECEASED BY LR. 78(a) SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. CHIKKA PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.78) DURGA (DURGI) W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR, SINCE DECEASED BY LR. TIRUPATHI S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.79) 79. 79(a) - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 80. B. VENKATA S/O DEVALA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. SINCE DECEASED BY LR. 80(a) SMT. NAGAMMA W/O VENKATA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.80) 81. CHENNAIAH S/O LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. SINCE DECEASED BY LR. 81(a) SMT. NAGAMMA W/O CHANAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.81) 82. SANNA THIRUPALA S/O. OBAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. SINCE DECEASED BY LR. 82(a) KRISHNA S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.82) 83. OBAIAH S/O BAYYANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA. SINCE DECEASED BY LR: 83(a) GOPI, DRIVER S/O OBAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.83) - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 84. 84(a) 85. 86. 87. MUNISWAMY S/O PAMCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. SINCE DECEASED BY LR. LAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.84) G. RAMAIAH S/O PANDU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. YAQUOOB FATHER’S NAME: NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. BASAIAH S/O THIRUPATHI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR. SHIMOGA DISTRICT SINCE DECEASED BY LR: 87(a) CHOWDAMMA W/O THIRUPATHI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPUR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 88. KONETA S/O PEDDAPANCHALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT SINCE DECEASED BY LR: - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 88(a) SEETHAMMA W/O KONETA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, KANUR ASHRAYA LAYOUT, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.88) YANKATAMMA W/O PANCHALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. MALLAIAH S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. G. NAGAIAH S/O OBAYYA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT SINCE DECEASED BY LR: 89. 90. 91. 91(a) NAGARAJA S/O LATE G. NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 92. ASPATHRE NAGAIAH S/O OBAYYA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT SINCE DECEASED BY LR: 92(a) OBALAPPA S/O LATE ASPATHRE NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 93. 94. 95. PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.92) ADIYAMMA W/O VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. THABALA OBAYYA S/O LATE ASPATHRE NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. PEDDAIAH S/O PALAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SINCE DECEASED BY LR: 95(a) CHOWDAIAH S/O LATE PEDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, EX-MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MEMBER, PRAGATHI NAGR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DIST. (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.92) 96. ADAVAIAH S/O CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DIST. SINCE DECEASED BY LR: 96(a) PARASAD S/O LATE ADAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, KANUR ASHRAYA LAYOUT, - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. SHIKARIPURA TOWN, SHIMOGA DIST. (MANAGER OF JOINT FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.92) MANJUNATHA S/O LATE T. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. GOPALA S/O CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. PALAKSHA S/O CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. RADHAMMA W/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, PRAGATHI NAGAR, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. T.A.P.C.M.S. SALUR ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SHIKARIPURA TALUK DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL OFFICE SANTHE MARKET, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 103. SHAW KALUMAL S/O DHANUMAL, CLOTH MERCHANT, - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 104. SRINIDHI SHOWROOM, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIOGA DISTRICT. B. SHAFI AHMED S/O KHADER BASHA SAB, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, ASHA FOOTWEAR, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 105. UDAYA S/O M.C. ASHOK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ASHOKA MILITARY HOTEL, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 106. NIRANJAN SHASTRI S/O VEERANNA SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 107. G. KRISHNANANDA S/O GANAPATHI SHET KARKI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, JEWELLARY SHOP, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 108. G. RAMADASA S/O GANAPATHI SHET KARKI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, JEWELLARY SHOP, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 109. G. GOPINATH S/O GANAPATHI SHET KARKI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, JEWELLARY SHOP, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 110. G. MOHAN S/O GANAPATHI SHET KARKI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, JEWELLARY SHOP, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 111. 112. JAYADEVA SHASTRI S/O MAHABALA SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, SADGURU COMPLEX, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O M. VENKATESH HOUSEHOLD WORK, (BANGAL STORES), M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 113. H. HIRIYANNA 114. 115. S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, FOOTWEAR BUSINESS, MASUR ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. K.S. NAGARAJ S/O KRISHNA NAVUDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SRI RAMABHAVAN HOTEL, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. R.N. DEVARAJA S/O RAMACHANDRA NAVULE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, DRUGGISTS, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 116. CHITTOOR KAMALAMMA D/O ADIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. R/O HOSA MEDARAKERI SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. PONNUMANI S/O GOVINDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, DRIVER, HOSA MEDARA KERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. ANNAPURNAMMA W/O NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HOSA MEDARA KERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. C.S. SHANMUKHAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HARALENNE KERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. KUMSI RANGAPPA S/O KUMSI RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOSA MEDARA KERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. KHASIMSAB S/O IBRAHIMSAB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. K. CHANDRAPPA S/O KARIYANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, DODDAPET, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 123. MUNISWAMY S/O YELUMALAI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 124. 125. BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. ADIYAMMA W/O SHANMUKHA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 126. MANJULA W/O DORAIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. LAKSHMIKANTHAMMA W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. BHAGYAMMA W/O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. ABDUL MAJIDSAB S/O IMAMSAB, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. PARASHURAM S/O SANJEEVA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 127. 128. 129. 130. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. YELUMALAI S/O CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. PARVATHAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. PRESIDENT GOVERNMENT RETIRED EMPLOYEES UNION, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. K.S. SHIVAPRAKASH S/O KANURU NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BEHIND RAJASHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. PISTABAI W/O MOHANLAL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, CLOTH MERCHANTS R/O. HARALENNE KERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. K.T. THUKARAM S/O LAKSHMANARAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS CLOTH MERCHANTS SHSISHUVIHARA ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. K.T. PARASHURAM S/O LAKSHMANARAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CLOTH MERCHANTS, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. VISHWA MURTHY S/O KALAHASTHISWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, MANDIPET, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. K.M. KUSUMA @ CHANNAMMA W/O NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MONEY LENDERS, HONNALI ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SURESH SANU S/O S.T. SANU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, GOLD SMITH, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. BHEEMARAO S/O SHIVALAJI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BEHIND RAJSHEKAR TALKIES SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SMT. HUCHANGAMMA W/O SOMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BEHIND RAJSHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. BHARMAPPA MEDARA S/O KARIBARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BEHIND RAJSHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O SHIVANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BEHIND RAJSHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SHABBIRSAB S/O GUDUSAB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BEHIND RAJSHEKAR TALKIES, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. Y. BASAVARAJ S/O SANNAYAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HOSA MEDARA KERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK, HOSA MEDARA KERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. S. KUMAR S/O SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BUSINESS MAN, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SMT. SUVARNAMMA W/O NIJALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. S.K. SHIVAPRASAD S/O S. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 152. M. NIJALINGAPPA S/O MALLESHAPPA, - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 153. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O KRISHNA NAVUDA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 154. GAMADHA GOVINDAPPA RETD. MASTER, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 155. ANANTHA GOVINDA SANU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SINCE DECEASED BY L.R: 155(a) SHIVANANDA SANU S/O LATE ANANTHA GOVINDA SANU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 156. SUBRAYA GOVINDA SANU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT SINCE DECEASED BY L.R.: 156(a) RAGHAVENDRA SANU S/O LATE SUBRAYA GOVINDA SANU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 157. PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O HARIHARADA CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, GENERAL STORES, - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 MARKET ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DIST. 158. MOHAN P. SANU S/O. RATHNAKARA SANU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 159. M. MALLAPPA S/O. BASATEPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES MERCHANTS, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SINCE DECEASED BY L.R.: 159(a) KOTRESHA S/O. LATE M. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES MERCHANTS, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA. SHIMOGA DISTRICT. (MANAGER OF THE JOINT FAMILY OF RESPONDENT NO.159) 160. SHERIFF S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, VEGETARIAN HOTEL, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DIST. 161. NEELAKANTAPPA SHASTRI S/O. GURAPPA SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 162. GAMADHA BASAPPA S/O. MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OWNER OF THE SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL BLDG., M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 163. GANESHAPPA 164. S/O. MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OWNER OF THE SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL BLDG., M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OWNER OF THE SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL BLDG., M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 165. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OWNER OF THE SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL BLDG., M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SINCE DECEASED BY L.R.: 165(a) SHIVANANDA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OWNER OF THE SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL BLDG., M.S. ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. (MANAGER OF THE JOINT FAMILY OF RESPONDENT NO.165) 166. HANJI RUDRAPPA S/O. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 167. M.R. SRINIVASA S/O. K.V. RAMASWAMY, - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BAKERY BUSINESS, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. S. RAMAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SURYACHANDRA S/O. BAIROJI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PROVISION MERCHANT, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA MADDI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. B.G. MEGHARAJ S/O. GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, ICE FACTORY, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. PAPANNA S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WINE MERCHANT, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DIST. 173. GUNDAGATTE HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, WADEYARA KERI, MASOOR ROAD, SHIKARIPURA SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SINCE DEAD BY L.R.: - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 173(a) G. CHANDRAPPA S/O. LATE GUNDAGATTE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WADEYARA KERI, MASOOR ROAD, SHIKARIPURA SHIMOGA DISTRICT. (MANAGER OF THE JOINT FAMILY OF RESPONDENT NO.173) 174. MYTHRADEVI 175. 176. 177. W/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. THARADEVI W/O. SHIVAPPA HOUSEHOLD WORK, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SYED AHMED S/O. SYED IDRUS, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HOSA MEDARA KERI, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. VENKATAMMA W/O. OBAYYA, MAJOR, HOSA MEDARA KERI, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. SINCE DEAD BY L.R.: 177(a) GOPI S/O. OBAYYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HOSA MEDARA KERI, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. (MANAGER OF THE JOINT FAMILY OF RESPONDENT NO.177) - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 178. 179. A. ABDUL BASHA S/O ABDUL NAZIR, MAJOR, HOSA MEDARA KERI, SRI RAMABHAVANA HOTEL SIDE ROAD, SHIKARIPURA SHIMOGA DISTRICT. LOKESH S/O. SUKRI SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. HARALENNE KERI, SHIKARIPURA TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 180. M.K. ANJANEYA S/O. KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, BEERALINGESHWARA CASSET SHOP, R/O. KANOOR HOSAKERI, SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 181. KRISHNAPPA ADOPTED S/O. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 182. C. RAMESH S/O. ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 183. SURESHA S/O. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 184. JAGADEESHA S/O. ADIVEPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 185. JEEVAN S/O. LAKSHMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN: JAGADEESHA, S/O. ADIVEPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 186. 187. RAJAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SHANMUKHAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.181 TO 187 ARE R/O. SHIKARIPURA TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI KIRAN V. RON, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, A/W SRI G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R-3 TO R-5; SRI K. SRIKANTH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-13, V/O. DATED 09.01.2013, - NOTICE TO R-6 TO R-178 D/W; R-179, R-180 & R-187 ARE SERVED; V/O. DATED 07.10.2014, R-181 TO R-186 HELD SUFFICIENT BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, ORDER 41, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.07/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC., SORABA, ITINERARY, SHIKARIPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION. Date on which the appeals were reserved for Judgment Date on which the Judgment was pronounced 08.04.2025 29.04.2025 THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR and HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA) The regular first appeals arise from the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2010 passed in OS No.7/2008 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Soraba, (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ for short), whereby the plaintiff’s suit seeking compensation and alternatively for declaration of ownership and possession over the suit schedule property was decreed. 2. RFA 137/2011 is preferred by the State- (defendants No.1 to 3) and RFA 406/2011 is preferred by defendant No.4, the Town Municipal Council, Shikaripura, (TMC for short). 3. On 01.03.1941 TMC passed a resolution to form and distribute sites in Sy.No.6. On 08.08.1941 TMC passed a resolution to acquire Sy. No.6 (suit properties are shown as Sy. Nos.6/1 and 6/2). On 30.12.1941 TMC passed a resolution and resolved that Rs.2,106/- must be - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 deposited for the land acquisition as per LAC:10/41-42. On 11.10.1945, a final notification was issued by the State under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short). Chittur Siddappa’s sons i.e., Honnappa and Siddabasappa effected oral partition on 24.09.1934. The oral partition was reduced in writing on 15.02.1949. Under the said document, the parties agreed to share the compensation receivable in respect of the acquisition of Sy. No.6. On 01.06.1951 one site each was allotted in Sy.No.6 in favour of four persons of the family of the plaintiffs. A layout formed in respect of Sy.No.5 and Sy.No.6 was sent to the State Government for approval in view of certain changes on 28.07.1952. TMC resolved to shift the bus stand by a resolution dated 31.12.1952. According to the appellants in both the appeals, Sy. No.6 (shown as Sy. Nos.6/1 and 6/2 in the schedule) along with other properties were acquired for the benefit of the municipality. The revenue records from 1951-52 indicate the suit property has been acquired for municipality. This being the state of affairs, one Mallikarjun, family member - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 of plaintiff No.1 instituted suit for partition and separate possession in OS No.177/2006. Plaintiff No.2 instituted another suit for partition and separate possession in OS No.106/2006 by including Sy. No.6 and obtained injunction order not to put up any bus stand. OS No.106/2006 was transferred and re-numbered as OS No.180/2006. The interim order granted by the trial Court was vacated. The same came to be challenged by plaintiff No.2 in MFA No.11858/2006 and an order of status quo was granted. The TMC filed review petition in RP No.519/2006. This Court in review petition revoked the order of status quo on an undertaking given by the TMC that defendant will demolish the building if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit. OS No.180/2006 and OS No.177/2006 were transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.), Soraba and re-numbered as OS No.252/2007 and OS No.254/2007. The said suits came to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The present suit, OS No.7/2008, is filed seeking direction to the defendants to complete the acquisition - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 proceedings, pay compensation based on current market value to both the plaintiffs and defendant No.178, in proportion to their ownership rights in the suit property. Alternatively, if the acquisition is not completed, declare the plaintiffs and defendant No.178 as rightful owners and order that vacant possession of the specified properties be handed over to them. The plaintiffs’ state that the suit properties are the joint family properties. They allege that the defendants have neither taken possession nor passed an award nor paid compensation. Thus, they remain the owners. The plaintiffs aver that as per the partition deed dated 15.02.1949, item No.1 of the schedule property was divided between Honnappa (father of plaintiff No.1) and Siddabasappa (father of the mother of defendant No.178), both being sons of Siddappa and item No.2 of the schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiff No.2’s family. 4. It is further averred that a bus stand has been constructed on the land, with portions leased or sold to - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 third parties (other defendants), and “Hakku Patras” (land ownership documents) have been issued to several defendants, who have made unauthorized construction. Despite protest the TMC tried to construct a bus stand in 2006. It is averred that although earlier suits had been instituted, they were subsequently withdrawn and the present suit seeking declaration. 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 opposed the plaintiff’s claim, denied the averments and asserted that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit properties. It is averred that the plaintiffs must prove ownership, as their title is disputed. According to the defendants, the Government issued notification for acquisition on 11.10.1945 and the suit properties in question are in exclusive possession of TMC and some portion with other defendants. The defendants’ claim that the acquisition process was completed, and they have been in possession – specifically TMC for more than 65 years, some even over - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 100 years. They asserted that the suit is barred by limitation. 6. The TMC-defendant No.4 filed separate written statement stating that Sy. No.6 was acquired in 1945 for the expansion of Shikaripura town and construction of bus stand. Portions of the suit property were in use by the TMC from the year 1908 – 09 as “Kacheri Koppalu”. Even before 1941 some government offices existed on the suit property. Further, that a resolution was passed by the TMC to acquire the land on 08.08.1941 and the TMC decided to form and distribute sites in Sy. No.6. On 01.06.1951, some plots were allotted to the members of Chittur family and sale deeds were executed in their favor. A layout modification for Sy.Nos.5 and 6 was sent to the Government for approval on 28.07.1952. In the year 1951-52 part of land was used to build a bus stand and by 1952-53 shops were leased. The partition deed executed in the year 1949 clearly indicates about the acquisition of the suit property. The municipal records consistently show - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 the area as the bus stand and revenue records from 1954- 55, 1955-56 reflect the land as required for municipal use. 7. The other defendants adopted this stand, denying the plaintiffs’ ownership and claimed ownership through TMC and in some cases by way of adverse possession as well. All the defendants contested the suit specifically contending the suit is barred by limitation. 8. The trial Court held that the matter revolves around an alleged deficiency of duty on the part of the authorities in awarding compensation following acquisition. It observed that the exact date of such deficiency could not be determined, and hence the claim was not barred by limitation. The trial Court observed that Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (residuary provision) (“Limitation Act” for short) may apply but reasoned that the cause of action arose only when the Deputy Commissioner refused to award compensation, and since no time limit is specified for such deposit the claim could not be dismissed as time barred solely based on the lapse of 60 years. The trial - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 Court observed that there was no formal request made by the plaintiffs to the Government for compensation, but that alone could not be their right to claim it. The plaintiff’s right to compensation is a continuing right, and as such delay did not by itself justified dismissal of the suit. The trial Court invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation, stating that plaintiffs’ inaction to protest construction may be due to their belief that compensation would eventually be paid. Additionally, the Court held that since the plaintiffs admitted that defendants are in illegal possession, Article 64 of the Limitation Act was not applicable. The trial Court proceeded to allow the suit finding that plaintiffs are entitled to relief. 9. Heard Sri G Krishnamurthy, learned Senior counsel for the appellant in RFA No.406/2011, Sri Kiran V Ron, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri G S Aruna, learned HCGP for the State in RFA No.137/2011 and Sri Basavaraj V Sabarad, learned Senior counsel for Sri Mahesh R Uppin, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 and 2 (plaintiffs); Sri Sudharshan Suresh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Chandrakanth Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 10. Learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned AAG for the State would argue that Sy. No.6 was acquired in 1945 for public purposes specifically for town expansion and construction of a bus stand. There was a resolution by the TMC in 1941 to acquire the land followed by action pursuant to the 1945 notification. The bus stand was constructed and made operational in 1951-52. Revenue and municipal records reflect consistent use and control of Sy. No.6 (suit property) by the defendants. The plaintiffs’ family members were allotted sites in 1951 and they accepted the sale deeds from TMC, evidencing consent to acquisition. It is submitted that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation as the present suit is filed after a lapse of 63 years. Taking the Court to various judgments of the Apex Court which would be discussed later, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 suit was not maintainable as admittedly the land was subject matter of acquisition and the plaintiffs ought to have filed an appropriate writ petition. It is submitted that even for granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the reasonable period has been prescribed. However, there is no discretion or authority to relax the period of limitation in respect of Civil Suits. The acquisition in question took place prior to independence i.e., on 11.10.1945. Under the relevant law then in force, the limitation prescribed for claiming compensation was one year. The Limitation Act that came into force on 01.01.1964 did not prescribe a specific article for suits seeking compensation for non-payment pursuant to land acquisition. Consequently, Article 113 of the Limitation Act applies which provides that a suit for which no specific limitation period is prescribed must be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. It is submitted that Section 9 of CPC excludes suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred, a suit of the present nature is not maintainable as the LA Act - 44 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 is a complete code by itself and preferring a writ petition was the only remedy as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and another vs. Brijesh Reddy and another1 (Brijesh Reddy) and even to prefer a writ petition the delay and laches would play an important role while exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent–plaintiff argues that the plaintiffs have not challenged the acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, the prayer sought by the plaintiff is to complete the land acquisition proceedings by passing award and pay compensation to the plaintiffs. It is argued that the ouster of jurisdiction of a Civil Court must be construed having regard to the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act as also the object it seeks to achieve. 1 2013 (3) SCC 66 - 45 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 12. Learned senior counsel submits that it is well settled proposition of law that where a statute confers finality upon the orders of the special tribunal, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is generally excluded, provided the statute offers an adequate and effective remedy to address the issues that Civil Court would ordinarily entertain in a suit. However, this exclusion does not apply in cases where the provisions of the statute have not been duly complied with, or where statutory tribunal has failed to act in accordance with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Finding support to his argument, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhulabhai etc. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2 (Dhulabhai). Further the submission is that the appellant’s contention regarding the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is misconceived and contrary to the provisions of the LA Act. It is contended that the decisions relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. In those cases, 2 AIR 1969 SC 78 - 46 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 the issue involved was the validity of the land acquisition notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the LA Act, and the Courts therein held that such questions fall exclusively within the domain of the Constitutional Court and cannot be adjudicated by Civil Courts. However, the present suit does not challenge the validity of the acquisition notification per se, rather it pertains to non- compliance with statutory provisions, such as the failure to complete the acquisition proceedings, non-passing of award and non-payment of compensation despite taking possession. Further, that the right to property is a Constitutional as well as a human right, safeguarded under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. Such right cannot be abrogated or curtailed except in strict compliance with the due process of law. In cases of acquisition, without payment of compensation, limitation cannot be mechanically applied, as the obligation to compensate is a continuing one. It is further contended that the delay in asserting the right - 47 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 does not extinguish the right to receive the compensation particularly when the State has already taken the possession and benefited from the land, places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar Mishra (D) vs. State of Bihar3 (Dharnidhar Mishra); M/s. Ultra-tech Cement Ltd., vs. Mast Ram and others4 (M/s. Ultra-tech Cement Ltd.). 13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in the present appeals are, 1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable in law when the suit property was subject matter of land acquisition proceedings and whether the trial Court was justified in law in decreeing the suit despite the statutory bar ? 2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation in view of the inordinate delay in asserting their rights and seeking compensation despite the alleged acquisition in 1945 and long standing possession by the 3 AIR Online 2024 SC 396 4 AIR 2024 SC 5042 - 48 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 defendants, and whether the trial Court was justified in law in holding the suit to be within time ? 14. Point No.1: It is undisputed fact that the land in question was proposed for acquisition by TMC for purposes including town expansion and sites formation. On 01.03.1941 and 08.08.1941 TMC passed resolution to acquire Sy.No.6 for forming sites and for their distribution to individuals, as evidenced by Ex.P.248. A further resolution was passed on 30.12.1941, specifically referring to the scheduled properties, for which a sum of Rs.2,106/- was resolved to be deposited as compensation is evidenced by Ex.P.247. A voucher associated with resolution Ex.P.249 contains the voucher number and amount supporting the case that the compensation was deposited and reference to the same transaction is found in LAC 10/41-42. PW.1, the Power of Attorney of the plaintiff admitted during his cross-examination that the Government deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,350/- was reserved to be paid for compensation. The - 49 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 formation of layout and the allotment of sites by the municipality to the family members of the plaintiff necessarily implies that the land was validly acquired, the process of compensation was initiated, and the right of third parties have since arisen through site allotments and sale deeds. The TMC has not specifically denied that the compensation was paid. Instead, they have stated that the documentary records evidencing payment of compensation was not traceable, owing to lapse over 60 years. Notably, the plaintiffs have now come forward to seek compensation after delay of nearly six decades, raising serious questions of delay and laches and limitation. 15. At this juncture, it is pertinent to consider the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Brijesh Reddy, which has been relied upon by the appellants. In the said case, the Apex Court held that a civil suit is not maintainable in respect of land that has been acquired under the LA Act, once the acquisition proceedings are - 50 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 complete and possession is taken. The Court emphasized that the appropriate remedy for challenging acquisition or seeking compensation lies within the frame work provided under the LA Act and not by way of Civil Suit. In the instant case, the plaintiffs despite admitting acquisition proceedings and possession having been taken decades ago, have sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for compensation. The Apex Court observed at para No.18 as under: “18. It is clear that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose. By necessary implication, the power of the civil Court to take cognizance of the case under Section 9 CPC stands excluded and a civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity or legality of the notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6 and subsequent proceedings except by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is thus clear that the civil Court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction being granted on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only - 51 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 right available for the aggrieved person is to approach the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 136 with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power.” 16. In similar line, in the case of State of Bihar vs. Dhirendra Kumar and others5 (Dhirendra Kumar), the Apex Court observed at para No.3 as under: “3. The question is whether a civil suit is maintainable and whether ad interim injunction could be issued where proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act was taken pursuant to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act and delivered to the beneficiary. The provisions of the Act are designed to acquire the land by the State exercising the power of eminent domain to serve the public purpose. The State is enjoined to comply with statutory requirements contained in Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act by proper publication of notification and declaration within limitation and procedural steps of publication in papers and the local publications envisaged under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. In publication of the notifications and declaration under Section 6, the 5 (1995) 4 SCC 229 - 52 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 public purpose gets crystallised and becomes conclusive. Thereafter, the State is entitled to authorise the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with the acquisition of the land and to make the award. Section 11-A now prescribes limitation to make the award within 2 years from the last date of publication envisaged under Section 6 of the Act. In an appropriate case, where the Government needs possession of the land urgently, it would exercise the power under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Thereon, the State is entitled to issue notice to the parties under Section 9 and on expiry of 15 days, the State is entitled to take immediate possession even before the award could be made. Otherwise, it would take possession after the award under Section 12. Thus, it could be seen that the Act is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose. We are, therefore, inclined to think, as presently advised, that by necessary implication the power of the civil Court to take cognizance of the case under Section 9 of CPC stands excluded, and a civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity or legality of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6, except by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. So, the civil suit itself was not maintainable. When such is the situation, the finding - 53 - NC: 2025:KHC:17624-DB RFA No.137 of 2011 C/W RFA No.406 of 2011 of the trial Court that there is a prima facie triable issue is unsustainable. Moreover, possession was already taken and handed over to the Housing Board. So, the order of injunction was without jurisdiction.” 17. The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Chand and others vs. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and others6 (Laxmi Chand) observed that the Civil Court has no power to pronounce on invalidity of procedure adopted under Sections 4 and 6 of the LA Act. In S.P. Subramanya Shetty and others vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and others7 (S.P. Subramanya Shetty) the Apex Court held that the Civil Suit was not maintainable in view of the settled legal position that the notification had become final and the proceedings had attained finality. 18. The Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board and another vs. Chandi Bai and