The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20329 RSA No. 460 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.460 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. KUMARA, S/O SHAMBUGOWDA, AGED 51 YEARS. 2. PARAMESHA, S/O SHAMBUGOWDA, AGED 46 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 3. THAYAMMA, W/O PUTTEGOWDA, AGED 61 YEARS. 4. VINODA @ NAGAMMA, W/O DEVARAJU, AGED 53 YEARS. APPELLANTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT GOODE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426. 5. GEETHA @ SAVITHRI, W/O MANJEGOWDA, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT GANADAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20329 RSA No. 460 of 2025 HC-KAR 6. BHAGYAMMA, W/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT MADEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 116. 7. D.S. NINGEGOWDA, S/O SHAMBHUGOWDA @ THIMMAIH, AGED 77 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK. SHIVEGOWDA, DEAD BY LRS. 8. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA, AGED 75 YEARS. 9. MANJEGOWDA, S/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA, AGED 55 YEARS. 10. RUKMINI, D/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA, AGED 53 YEARS. 11. ANNEGOWDA, S/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA, AGED 51 YEARS. 12. ROHINI, D/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA, AGED 49 YEARS. APPELLANTS NO.8 TO 12 ARE R/AT DEVARAHALLI, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20329 RSA No. 460 of 2025 HC-KAR 13. KRISHNEGOWDA, S/O SHAMBHUGOWDA @ THIMMAIAH, AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT SY.NO.56, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030. 14. SUBBAMMA, W/O MANJEGOWDA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT ADAGOOR VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 116. VENKATEGOWDA @ VENKATAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 15. NINGARAJU, S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED 37 YEARS. 16. ARUNA, D/O VENKATAPPA, AGED 35 YEARS. APPELLANTS NO.15 AND 16 ARE R/AT SHRAVANANAHALLI VILLAGE, AKKIHEBBALU HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426. 17. JAYANTHI,
Legal Reasoning
W/O SRINIVAS, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O THULASI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426. (BY SMT. MANJULADEVI R. KAMADOLLI, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20329 RSA No. 460 of 2025 HC-KAR AND: 1. PARVATHI, D/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED 49 YEARS, DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK-571 426. 2. KALAMMA, W/O RANGEGOWDA, AGED 56 YEARS, KENCHANAHALLY VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLY HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 116. SHAMBHAMMA, W/O JAVAREGOWDA, DIED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. SHOBHA, W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O JUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 116. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.11.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5033/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2023 PASSED IN FDP NO.46/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 20 RULE 12 AND SECTION 54 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20329 RSA No. 460 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2025 for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the appeal and I.A.No.2/2025 for condonation of delay of 843 days in filing the LR application, setting aside the abatement and for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.3 in R.A. on record. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material available on record, there was a judgment and decree granting the relief of partition in O.S.No.116/1989 and the decree was passed on 03.09.1993 and the same was challenged before this Court in R.F.A.No.379/1993 and the same was dismissed on 13.11.2000 and the preliminary decree had attained finality and thereafter FDP No.46/2009 was filed and the same was disposed of on 08.06.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, R.A. was filed. 3. The main ground urged before the Court is that the legal representatives were not brought on record and the said issue was taken note of by the First Appellate Court in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20329 RSA No. 460 of 2025 HC-KAR paragraph No.27 that the plaintiffs have claimed their share only through their father who passed away and defendant No.2 has nothing to do with the share of Nanjegowda over the suit schedule properties. The legitimacy of the plaintiffs or otherwise is not required to be adjudicated now. The grant of legitimate share to the plaintiffs and defendant No.8 has reached finality. In paragraph No.28 taken note of that the suit was of the year 1989 and the same was decreed on 28.08.1993 and R.F.A. was filed before this Court and the same was dismissed on 13.11.2000 and till date, the plaintiffs are not able to enjoy the fruits of the decree. The Court also taken note of the fact that defendant No.2 Shambugowda has adopted delaying tactics and it has come in the way of the plaintiffs in enjoying their share in the properties, which they are entitled to the extent of share of Nanjegowda. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.29 taken note of that during the pendency of the petition, respondent No.3 Shivegowda, respondent No.5 Puttamma and respondent No.7 Gowramma were reported to be dead, however, legal representatives are not brought on record. It has also taken note that except respondent No.2, no one has filed objections to the petition. In the absence of the above respondents also, there is no - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20329 RSA No. 460 of 2025 HC-KAR impediment to allot the share of the petitioners because, they represent the branch of Nanjegowda through Thimmamma exclusively. Hence, non-impleading legal representatives of above respondents is not fatal to the contention of the petitioners. 4. It is important to note that the case of the appellants in this appeal is not the contention that they were not brought on record, but only the legal representatives of other respondents were not brought on record. The same cannot be a ground to admit the second appeal and no prejudice would be caused to the appellants in non-bringing of the legal representatives of respondent No.3 Shivegowda, respondent No.5 Puttamma and respondent No.7 Gowramma. The appellants are squatting on the property and not given share in terms of the decree of 1993 and the same was affirmed in 2000 and thereafter also dragged the matter for a period of 25 years. When such being the case, it is not a case to issue notice and admit the second appeal and there is no any substantial question of law only on the ground that the legal representatives were not brought on record in FDP - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20329 RSA No. 460 of 2025 HC-KAR proceedings and no prejudice is caused to the appellants in not bringing the legal representatives of other respondents. 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40