The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13613 RSA No. 2671 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2671 OF 2007 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVANNA, S/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 117 DIED ON 7/8/2007 REPRESENTED BY LRs 1(a) SMT MALLAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED 50 YEARS 1(b) REVANNA S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED 40 YEARS 1(c) GURULINGAIAH, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED 30 YEARS 1(d) SHIVAKUMARAIAH, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED 25 YEARS, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka ALL ARE R/O MALLENAHALLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 117. …APPELLANTS
Legal Reasoning
[BY SRI. M B CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE (PH)] - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13613 RSA No. 2671 of 2007 AND: 1. GURUSHANTHAPPA S/O LATE REVANNA, AGED 72 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRs 1(a) SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE GURUSHANTHAPPA, AGED 80 YEARS, 1(b) SRI SHAMBULINGAIAH, S/O LATE GURUSHANTHAPPA, AGED 55 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/A NO.3/179, CHENNAYYANA AGRAHARA, BELAGANDANAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, NAGANDANAHALLI POST, DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT - 635 114. 1(c) 1(d) SRI G. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE GURUSHANTHAPPA, R/A NO.518, 1ST CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGARA, BEHIND IPP HOSPITAL, KANAKAPURA TOWN, KANAKAPURA - 562 117. SRI G. MADESH & G. MAHADEVAIAH, S/O LATE GURUSHANTHAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O MALLENAHALLI, GUTHALAHUNISE P.O. MARALAVADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,L RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT. 1(e) SRI G. PUTTARAJU, S/O LATE GURUSHANTHAPPA, AGED 42 YEARS, R/A NO.3/179, CHENNAYYANA AGRAHARA, BELOGANDANAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, NAGANDANAHALLI POST, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13613 RSA No. 2671 of 2007 DENKANIKOTTAI TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT - 635 114. 2. CHANDRAPPA (HOTEL CHANDRAPPA), S/O LATE REVANNA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/O MALLENAHALLI POST: YENNAGARA, HOBLI: JIGANI, TALUK: ANEKAL, DISTRICT: BANGALORE. [BY SRI V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(d) (PH); SRI C.V. KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (a-c & e) (PH)] …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 07.08.2007 PASSED IN R.A.NO.02/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2000 PASSED IN O.S.NO.67/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN), & JMFC., RAMANAGARA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13613 RSA No. 2671 of 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 07.08.2007 passed by Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in R.A.no.02/2001, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri M.B.Chandra Chooda, learned counsel for defendant-appellant submitted, suit was filed for partition of 2 Acres and 18 Guntas of land in Sy.no.109 and 38 Guntas of land in Sy.no.177 situated in Bullagere Village, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Bengaluru. It was submitted, said lands were Inam lands granted to Sri Basaveshwara Temple as per Ex.D.3 passed by Land Tribunal. It was submitted, validity of order of grant was subject matter of W.P.no.20612/1993
Decision
disposed of on 10.07.2000 (Ex.D.43), wherein order passed by Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights was set-aside and matter remitted back to Tribunal, where matter was still pending. It was submitted, since suit properties as inam lands would be available for partition only after grant, decree for partition passed by first appellate Court would have no legs to stand and therefore, seeks for allowing appeal. 3. On other hand, Sri V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1(d) and Sri V.Krishnan, learned counsel for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13613 RSA No. 2671 of 2007 respondents no.1(a to c and e) opposed appeal by relying on various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagesh Bisto Desai v. Khando Tirmal Desai reported in (1982) 2 SCC 79, Kalgonda Babgonda Patil v. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil and Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1042, and decisions of this Court in Narayanappa and Ors. v.Doddapattabhi and Ors. (RFA no.1420/2012 D.D. on 10.03.2016), Rashid Hamid and Ors. v. Allabax and Ors. (RFA no.7140/2008 D.D. on 25.01.2024). 4. It was submitted, when suit was filed in year 1989, suit properties were granted by land tribunal by order dated 05.11.1986. Therefore, suit was tenable. It was submitted, merely on ground that order of grant was subsequently set aside and matter was remitted back, cause of action accrued cannot be set to have been lost. It was submitted, rights of parties for share could be decided subject to grant of land by Tribunal by referring to decision of this Court in RSA no.4017/2012 decided on 22.04.2022. 5. Heard learned counsel, perused judgment and decree and records. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13613 RSA No. 2671 of 2007 6. On perusal of pleadings-Exhibits D.3 and D.43, it would appear that suit properties were Inam lands granted by Land Tribunal. But, Ex.D.3 passed by Land Tribunal has been set-aside by this Court in judgment marked at Ex.D.43 and matter was remitted back. Said event would eclipse cause of action accrued for filing suit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagesh Bisto Desai v. Khando Tirmal Desai reported in (1982) 2 SCC 79, Anant Kibe & Ors. v. Purushottam Rao & Ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 1121 and Shivappa Tammannappa Karaban v. Parasappa Hanamappa Kuraban & Ors. reported in 1994 AIR SC W 5031 has held Inam lands would be impartible prior to grant. Therefore, judgment and decree by first appellate Court would require to be held ineffective, unless there is order of grant passed. 7. With said observations and reserving liberty to parties to seek for revival of this appeal in case of grant, appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13613 RSA No. 2671 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SHIVANNA AND OTHERS VS. GURUSHANTHAPPA AND ANOTHER] 03.04.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO' Appeal was disposed of on 01.04.2025. Some time after disposal, learned counsel for respondents mentioned that an order for interim protection of subject matter requires to be passed. Therefore, matter is listed for 'being spoken to'. Opposing request for grant of any interim protection, learned counsel for appellants submitted that respondents herein, have in fact suffered a decree of permanent injunction passed in O.S.no.465/1989 confirmed in R.A.no.30/1999 and RSA no.965/2003 disposed of on 11.10.2004. Learned counsel for respondents would further submit that since names of appellants are mentioned in revenue records in respect of subject lands, there is possibility of alienation, which shall likely result in multiplicity of proceedings. Admittedly, claim for re-grant of land in question is pending before Land Tribunal in view of vesting of lands. In view of above, no further orders require to be passed. AV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE