IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A. No.1312 OF 2009 C/W R.S.A.Nos.1310, 1311, 1313, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1602, 1603 OF 2009 IN R.S.A No.1312/2009 BETWEEN:
SRI D. YADUGIRI S/O. LATE DASA BOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. CHIKKAVVANU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.
(A) SMT. SHEELA W/O K.B. SIDDEGOWDA, D/O LATE CHIKKAVANU, AGED 36 YEARS, R/A NO.294, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, HEBBAL MAIN ROAD, LOKANAYAKANAGAR, METAGALLI POST, MYSORE-570 016.
B) SRI. K.C.RAJU, S/O LATE CHIKKAVANU, AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT MANDYA MAIN ROAD, KIRUGUVALU, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
C) SRI. NAGENDRA C S/O LATE CHIKKAVANU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT MANDYA MAIN ROAD, KIRUGAVALU, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. SRI D. GOPAL S/O LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
3. D. SANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs:
a) SMT. MADAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.1812/33A, GIRIYABOVI PALYA, MYSORE - 570 011.
b) SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI D/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT No.133/A, 4TH CROSS KAVERI MAIN RAOD, RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSORE-570 011.
c) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT KONANURU PALYA CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
d) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT UMMARAGALLI PALYA H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 001.
e) SMT. LALITHA W/O. GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT YALACHIPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
f) SMT. YASHODA W/O. B. SWAMY AGED 45 YEARS R/AT D.No.286, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, MYSORE-570 011.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR R1 (a to c) R3 (a,b,c,d,f) ARE SERVED NOTICE TO R-3(e) IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.2019) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No. 187/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2003 PASSED IN O.S.No.837/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, MYSORE.
IN R.S.A No.1310/2009 BETWEEN:
SRI D. YADUGIRI S/O. LATE DASA BOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE ) AND:
1. CHANDRAVATHI W/O. LATE N.T. SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT 5583, 5TH CROSS 14TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE VIJAYANAGARA MYSORE.
2. SRI. D. GOPAL S/O. LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
3. D.SANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs A) SMT. MADAMMA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.1812/33A, GIRIYABOVI PALYA, MYSORE 570 011.
B) SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI D/O DASAPPA AGED 56 YEARS R/AT No.133/A, 4TH CROSS KAVERI MAIN ROAD RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSORE-570 011.
C) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O THIMMA BOVI AGED 54 YEARS R/AT KONANURU PALYA CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
D) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT UMMARAGALLI PALYA H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
E) SMT. LALITHA W/O. GOVINDAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT YALACHIPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
F) SMT. YASHODA W/O B. SWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT D.No.286, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGARA MYSORE-570 011.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR R1 NOTICE TO R3(c) HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.04.2019 R-2, 3(a,b,d,e) ARE SERVED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.188/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2003 PASSED IN O.S.No.836/1998 ON THE FILE C/C OF THE V ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, MYSORE.
IN R.S.A No.1311/2009 BETWEEN:
SRI D. YADUGIRI S/O. LATE DASA BOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, FOR SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE ) AND:
1. SMT.SUNDARAMMA W/O SHAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT D.No.36, 4TH MAIN 9TH CROSS, ALANAHALLI LAYOUT MYSORE.
2. SRI. D. GOPAL S/O. LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
3. D.SANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs a) SMT. MADAMMA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.1812/33A, GIRIYABOVI PALYA, MYSORE - 570 011.
b) SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI D/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT No.133/A, 4TH CROSS KAVERI MAIN ROAD RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSORE-570 011.
c) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O THIMMA BOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT KONANURU PALYA CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
d) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT UMMARAGALLI PALYA H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
e) SMT. LALITHA W/O. GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT YALACHIPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
f) SMT. YASHODA W/O. B. SWAMY AGED 45 YEARS R/AT D.No.286, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, MYSORE-570 011.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR R1 NOTICE TO R3(C) HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.04.2019) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.190/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2003 PASSED IN O.S.No.835/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, MYSORE.
IN R.S.A No.1313/2009 BETWEEN:
SRI D. YADUGIRI S/O. LATE DASA BOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. SOWBHAGYA W/O. M. SHIVARAMU, MAJOR R/AT RAVANI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. SRI. D. GOPAL S/O. LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
3. D.SANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS a) SMT MADAMMA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.1812/33A, GIRIYABOVI PALYA, MYSORE - 570 011.
b) SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI D/O DASAPPA AGED 56 YEARS R/AT No.133/A, 4TH CROSS KAVERI MAIN RAOD, RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSORE-570 011.
c) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O THIMMA BOVI AGED 54 YEARS R/AT KONANURU PALYA CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
d) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT UMMARAGALLI PALYA H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.
e) SMT. LALITHA W/O. GOVINDAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT YALACHIPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
f) SMT. YASHODA W/O. B. SWAMY AGED 45 YEARS R/AT D.No.286, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGARA MYSORE-570 011.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR R1 NOTICE TO R3(c) IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.04.2019) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.185/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2003 PASSED IN O.S.No.838/1998 ON THE FILE OF C/C THE V ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE, (JR. DN.), MYSORE.
IN R.S.A No.1598/2009 BETWEEN:
SRI. D. GOPAL S/O LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADV.) AND:
1. CHIKKAVA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
a) SMT. SHEELA W/O. K.B. SIDDEGOWDA D/O. LATE CHIKKAVANU AGED 36 YEARS R/AT No.294, 3RD MAIN 6TH CROSS, HEBBAL MAIN ROAD LOKANAYAKANAGAR METAGALLI POST MYSORE-570 016.
b) SRI. K.C. RAJU S/O. LATE CHIKKAVANU AGED 34 YEARS R/AT MANDYA MAIN ROAD KIRUGAVALU MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
c) NAGENDRA C S/O LATE CHIKKAVANU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT MANDYA MAIN ROAD KIRUGAVALU MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. SRI. D. YADUGIRI S/O. LATE DASA BOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
3. SMT. SANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS a) SMT. MADAMMA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.1812/33A, GIRIYABOVI PALYA, MYSORE - 570 011.
b) SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI D/O DASAPPA AGED 56 YEARS R/AT No.133/A, 4TH CROSS KAVERI MAIN ROAD RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSORE - 570 011.
c) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT KONANURU PALYA CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
d) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT UMMARAGALLI PALYA H.D.KOTE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 125.
e) SMT. LALITHA W/O. GOVINDAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT YALACHIPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT – 571 501.
f) SMT. YASHODA W/O B. SWAMY AGED 45 YEARS R/AT D.No.286, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGARA MYSORE-570 011.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR R1(a TO c) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.199/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2003 PASSED IN O.S.No.837/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, MYSORE (C/C V ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.), MYSORE.
IN R.S.A.No.1599/2009 BETWEEN:
SRI. D. GOPAL S/O. LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. N. SRINIVAS, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. SOWBHAGYA W/O LATE M. SHIVARAMU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT RAVANI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 424.
2. SRI. D. YADUGIRI S/O LATE DASA BOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
3. D. SANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS a) SMT. MADAMMA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.1812/33A, GIRIYABOVI PALYA, MYSORE - 570 011.
b) SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI D/O DASAPPA AGED 56 YEARS R/AT No.133/A, 4TH CROSS KAVERI MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSORE-570 011.
c) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT KONANURU PALYA CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
d) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT UMMARAGALLI PALYA H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 125.
e) SMT. LALITHA W/O. GOVINDAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT YALACHIPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
f) SMT. YASHODA W/O B. SWAMY AGED 45 YEARS R/AT D.No.286, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGARA MYSORE-570 011.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR R-1) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.197/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEALS CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2003 PASSED IN O.S.No.838/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, MYSORE (C/C V ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.), MYSORE.) IN R.S.A.No.1600/2009 BETWEEN:
SRI. D. GOPAL S/O. LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI V. SRINIVAS, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. SUNDRAMMA W/O. SHAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT No.36, 4TH MAIN 9TH CROSS, ALANAHALLI LAYOUT MYSORE-570 001.
2. SRI. D. YADUGIRI S/O. LATE DASA BOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
3. D. SANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS a) SMT MADAMMA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.1812/33A, GIRIYABOVI PALYA, MYSORE - 570 011.
b) SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI D/O DASAPPA AGED 56 YEARS R/AT No.133/A, 4TH CROSS KAVERI MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSORE-570 011.
c) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT KONANURU PALYA CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
d) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT UMMARAGALLI PALYA H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 125.
e) SMT. LALITHA W/O. GOVINDAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT YALACHIPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 571 501.
f) SMT. YASHODA W/O. B. SWAMY AGED 45 YEARS R/AT D.No.286, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGARA, MYSORE-570 011.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR R1) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.193/2009 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2003 PASSED IN O.S.No.835/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, MYSORE (C/C V ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.), MYSORE.
IN R.S.A.No.1601/2009 BETWEEN:
SRI D. GOPAL S/O. LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION MYSORE -570 011.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI V. SRINIVAS, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. THEJOVATHAMMA W/O THIMMAPPASHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NAGASANDRA YADIYOOR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 142.
2. SRI D. YADUGIRI S/O LATE DASA BOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
3. D. SANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS a) SMT. MADAMMA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.1812/33A, GIRIYABOVI PALYA, MYSORE 570 011.
b) SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI D/O DASAPPA AGED 56 YEARS R/AT No.133/A, 4TH CROSS KAVERI MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSORE-570 011.
c) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT KONANURU PALYA CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
d) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT UMMARAGALLI PALYA H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT- 571 125.
e) SMT. LALITHA W/O. GOVINDAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT YALACHIPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT – 571 501.
f) SMT. YASHODA W/O. B. SWAMY AGED 45 YEARS R/AT D.No.286, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGARA MYSORE-570 011.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR R1) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.198/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2003 PASSED IN O.S.No.860/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, MYSORE, (C/C V ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.), MYSORE).
IN R.S.A No.1602/2009 BETWEEN:
SRI. D. GOPAL S/O. LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. G. CHANDRAVATHI W/O. LATE SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT D.NO.5583, 5TH CROSS 14TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE VIJAYANAGAR MYSORE-570 001.
2. SRI. D. YADUGIRI S/O. LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
3. D.SANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS a) SMT. MADAMMA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.1812/33A, GIRIYABOVI PALYA, MYSORE 570 011.
b) SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI D/O DASAPPA AGED 56 YEARS R/AT No.133/A, 4TH CROSS KAVERI MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSORE-570 011.
c) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT KONANURU PALYA CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
d) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT UMMARAGALLI PALYA H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 125.
e) SMT. LALITHA W/O. GOVINDAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT YALACHIPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 501.
f) SMT YASHODA W/O. B. SWAMY AGED 45 YEARS R/AT D.No.286, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGARA MYSORE-570 011.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR CAVEATOR R1) THIS REGUALR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.195/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2003 PASSED IN O.S.No.836/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, MYSORE (C/C V ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.), MYSORE).
IN R.S.A No.1603/2009 BETWEEN:
SRI. D. YADUGIRI S/O. LATE DASA BOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. THEJOVATHAMMA W/O. THIMMAPPASHETTY MAJOR, R/AT NAGASANDRA YADIYOOR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 142 MYSORE DISTRICT.
2. SRI. D. GOPAL S/O. LATE DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT RAGHAVENDRANAGAR KYATHAMARANAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSORE-570 011.
3. D. SANNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS a) SMT MADAMMA D/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT DOOR No.1812/33A, GIRIYABOVI PALYA, MYSORE - 570 011.
b) SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI D/O DASAPPA AGED 56 YEARS R/AT No.133/A, 4TH CROSS KAVERI MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRANAGAR MYSORE-570 011.
c) SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT KONNURU PALYA CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.
d) SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. THIMMAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT UMMARAGALLI PALYA H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT- 571 125.
e) SMT. LALITHA W/O. GOVINDAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT YALACHIPALYA, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 571 501.
f) SMT. YASHODA W/O B. SWAMY AGED 45 YEARS R/AT D.No.286, 2ND CROSS RAGHAVENDRANAGARA MYSORE-570 011.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI O. SHIVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR CAVEATOR R1) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.192/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2003 PASSED IN O.S.No.860/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, MYSORE (C/C V ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) MYSORE).
THESE RSAs COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT These ten regular second appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Appeals, morefully stated in the table below:
2. The aggrieved parties in each of the suits preferred regular appeals on the file of first appellate Court as per following table.
3. All the suits mentioned in the above table are stated to be filed for the relief of permanent injunction by several persons claiming each of them purchased the properties mentioned in the Table-3 hereunder for valuable consideration under the unregistered sale deeds.
RSA1603/2009 4. The substantial questions of law framed by this Court common to all the appeals on 2.11.2010 are as under:
(a) Notwithstanding Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, whether an unregistered sale could be looked into for the collateral purpose of ascertaining possession, on the premise that an agreement of sale where possession is delivered, if it did not require registration, the proviso to Section 49 would come to the aid of the respondent in claiming that possession under the unregistered sale deed could yet be established?
(b) Whether the appellant without seeking recovery of possession based on his title could pursue this appeal in respect of a decree for permanent injunction?
(c) Whether Section 53A would protect the possession of the respondent?
5. I have reframed the substantial questions of law in all these appeals as under:
(i) Whether the plaintiff in all the said original suits can claim permanent injunction in respect of their possession in respect of vacant site against their vendor?
(ii) Whether collateral purpose includes relief against dispossession ?
(iii) Whether this Court can go beyond the orders passed in W.P.Nos.22147/1998 dated 10.11.1998?
6. The sources of litigation for these appeals started when the suits were filed against defendant Nos.1 to 3 for the relief of permanent injunction.
7. In order to avoid overlapping and confusions, parties are referred with reference to their rankings as in the original suit.
8. These Appeals coming up for disposal and since all of them stand on similar prayer in respect of common property in different portions and cause of action in one case is linked to another, they are taken up for common disposal.
9. Insofar as the Regular Appeals which were preferred by the present appellants (defendants No.2 and 3) are concerned, they were disposed of through the common judgment by 4th Additional District Judge, Mysore as mentioned above.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals present. Whereas learned counsel for defendants on record is absent and there is no representation. Same situation had arisen on the previous date of hearing also as reflected from the Order Sheet.
11. There are litigations one after the other in respect of property in question. To start with, the present original suits reaching the stage of Regular Second Appeals are those filed by the plaintiffs which were came to be decreed by the trial Court which came to be confirmed by the first appellate Court.
12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2009 passed in the regular appeals confirming the judgment of the trial Court, the defendants 2 and 3 have come up with these appeals.
13. However, the set of appeals are presented separately. The defendant No.1 has not challenged the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. The 2nd defendant-Gopal S/o Dasa Bhovi and the 3rd defendant-Yadhugiri S/o Dasa Bhovi preferred appeals as mentioned above.
14. The plaint as could be seen from the five cases contains similar cause of action raised by the respective plaintiffs wherein the plaint discloses that they have purchased the suit schedule property formed in Sy.No.177, situated at Raghavendranagara Extension, Kyathamaranahalli, Mysore.
15. The plaintiffs invariably in all the suits contended that the property in Sy.No.177 approximately measures 9 acres and situate at Kyathamaranahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore, belonged to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In the year 1976 there was a rumour regarding covering the land under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 and the defendants wanted to exhaust the land by forming revenue sites to escape from the clutches of the said Act. In continuation of the strategies, revenue sites were formed in the said land by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and sold them in favour of different persons, including the plaintiffs for a cash consideration of Rs.1,000/- and in this connection sale deed was executed on 16.03.1982, 7.10.1982 and 8.3.1981 respectively. Incidentally, they were not registered. Possessions were handed over and all the ingredients of sale deeds were completed and full consideration was received except paying proper stamp duty and getting them registered as per law under the Stamp and Registration Act. It is also seen that the litigation one after the another went on hunting the suit schedule properties as the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysore were confirmed by the IV Addl. District Judge, Mysore, in the regular appeals. Now, the matters reached the stage of Regular Second Appeals. It is not only these proceedings that exist in respect of suit schedule properties. Insofar as the defendants 2 and 3 are concerned, they have preferred the present appeals. The point is, the defendant No.1 is the mother of the defendants No.2 and 3 and it appears that they have made thoughtful strategies in one or the other litigations as O.S.No.96/1994 was filed before the learned Civil Judge, Mysore, for the relief of partition and separate possession against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and several other defendants including other purchasers. Again suit for injunction in O.S.No.248/1996 was filed by the 3rd defendant. But this time it is against the Mysore City Corporation to restrain it from interfering with the possession of the property. Understandably, none of the defendants and purchasers were made as parties and relief sought in respect of entire suit properties.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that complete checkered is given by this Court in W.P.No.22147/1998, when the same was filed by 2nd defendant-Gopal. This Court has disposed of the said writ petition. However, status-quo was ordered to be maintained till the disposal of partition suit in O.S.No.96/94 which is subjected to stampede by the other litigations.
17. Insofar as the position of the plaintiffs are concerned, they claim that they have purchased the property under the unregistered sale deeds which are morefully mentioned above and paid Rs.1000/- towards the sale price in entirety. They also claimed that they were inducted in the possession of the property by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Regard being had to the fact that, protection was enjoyed under Sec.53-A of Transfer of Property Act as well. The defects leveled by them is that the said sale deeds are unregistered and not stamped. Some of the plaintiffs said to have started construction work in their respective properties.
18. Insofar as defendant Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they are the sellers under unregistered sale deeds to the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule properties in all the five suits. The sale deeds fulfill all the formalities, except paying sufficient stamp duty.
19. Insofar as the Mysore City Corporation is concerned, the same is the competent Authority under Country and Town Planning Act, Development Authorities Act, Zonal Regulations and other related and against which, defendant No.3 has filed a suit for permanent injunction and that was said to have been withdrawn. Under these circumstances, the aspect that come up for consideration would be, what about the fate of the purchasers/plaintiffs under the unregistered sale deeds?
20. In this connection it is to be noted that whether it is either on the basis of mutual understandings or on the decision of suit which was filed by 3rd defendant against defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No. 96/1994 before the Civil Judge Mysore wherein several purchasers are also parties and some of them have raised construction and they carried on the acts of possession and that by virtue of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, both the parties are directed not to interfere with the construction or other activities. Thus, allowing or dismissing these appeals does not make any difference.
21. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suits for bare injunction can not be mandated and he would further submit that the persons claiming possession under the unregistered sale deeds cannot claim against the admitted owners. He would also submit that the relief sought by the plaintiffs cannot be regarded as collateral as claiming of the possession is material part of the document.
22. It was further submitted that Sec.53-A of Transfer of Property Act, does not provide sale to plaintiffs and it is confined to be used as a shield by the defendants when their position is attacked, provided they fulfill all the ingredients of Transfer of Property Act.
The claim of the plaintiffs that they have perfected the title by way of adverse possession is also questioned by the learned counsel for the defendants, as the plaintiffs cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. They cannot designate themselves as owners of the property on one hand and to be in adverse possession on the other.
23. In the over all facts and circumstances, the appeals are pending so far and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12147/1998 dated 10.11.1998 is binding on all the plaintiffs and defendants and those who are parties to the suits. Thus, these appeals cannot be taken for consideration on the ground that, they have over riding power over the other proceedings. Regard being had the fact that these appeals are coming out of suits for mere injunction. The substantial question of law are answered accordingly. Thus, the appeals are liable to be disposed of with the observation that rights of the parties are kept open till the disposal of the partition suit.
24. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*/JS/-