IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC.EAESUBHASHiTBfJXDI:E,
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO;i'620 /1"2O'O§
BETWEEN:
Sri.T.Ramaiah, sincey'_deceaseriA'
On 19.01.2005, representetl
Legal represer1tat:Eves:" ' *
1. Srnt.Kanakarn.._bajamn*1a,. _ ._ ;
Aged abofailt
VV/0161156 A
R/at NO.,1;:__3§fd C1'u0ss,"C_' ._ E 3
Seethappa 1ay?Out,"'M'annafayana Palya,
R.':{_'. Nagar' 5 pO.s_t",« .Bax_rgaJOre- - 560 032.
2. Sri.R.}?adrnanai3h;--1. "
Aged about 59._yea_rS; "
/0 late T;-Rainaiail,
._"R:,/a t . 6 / 3," Seethappa Layout,
. VIVi"ar'iIf1Aa rayana Palya,
G ETR.T'.'1.\}ag4ar__pOst, BangalOre--560 032.
A . R;\/Ejayakumar,
'Aged'a'.OO'ut 57 years,
S /O iate 'I'.Rarna1'ah,
.0 GR/at-No.1, 3" cross,
Seethappa layout, Mannarayana Palya,
0' "R;.'T.Nagar post, Banga10re~560 032.
Smt.Yeshashree,
Aged about 55 years,
D/O late T.Rama1ah &
W/O late B.S.DevegOwda.
5. Sri.D.Amar
Aged about 30 years,
S / 0 late B.S.Devegowda,
Nos.4 81 5 are resldlng at No.7,
RMV II stage, Opp: Swathi Residence, _ .
New BEL Road, Devasandra-5 * '
Banga1ore--560 O24. "
6. Smt.R.Jayashree
Aged about 53 years, _
W/o Sr1.C.Channakr1shn'ap'pa 81
13/0 late T.Rarna1ah,
R/ at No.2 /A, I4§h¥"main.wroad.,: ,
M.C.Layout, V1jaya_naga._r, '
Banga1ore--56O O40. A 7 "
7. Sri.Suresh4'B_a_bu I .
Aged about .ye.a'1«'s,' _V
S/0 late 'i",_'Ra1"n'a1a11.,jj"--.K V.
R/at No,4"1--,:'7}*1cr0«sS;--' ~
Mai'1esw.aiieam,"?~:Bahgalore--560 003.
8. Smt.R.Prem'a Ma'11.i,'"'--- A
Aged a'bou't 49-. ye-arsj
W /'0. .Sr1.'1";Sh1Vanna 8:
/ late T.Ram-----iah,
5' « _ _ AIT2/atfé}i'Jo1~];_3, Seethappa layout,
'Ma'n_r_1afayana Palya, R.T.Nagar post,
"5'_B5aI1galo1'eVf5'6O 032. ...APPELLANTS
(B3?-SrigP.a'd'ubidri Raghavendra Rao 8:
Sr1.P.~Sh;ash1dhara, Advs.)
5. Sri.V.Ver1kataraJI1anaiah,
S / 0 late Venkataramaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at 405, 18"] main, 4"? T Block,
Jayanagar, BangaIore~56O O4} .
2. Muniyappa @ Appaiyarma,
Since deceased by his L.Rs.
(a) Smt.Bacharnma -- since deceased
(b) Sri.Munibyrappa -- since deceased
Both are represented by their L.Rs. V 0 "0'
(1) Sri.Venkatesh
S/ o late Munibyrappa,"-.
Aged about 48 years, 0
(ii) Sri. Sornashekhar, he»
S / 0 late Mugnibyrappa;-_
Aged about '_238._years:,_ V . . A'
Both are residing at_No_. ;
H main road', .Atti_guppey:, _
Vij ayanagar;Bangalore----560' 040*;---'w"
" ...RESPONDEN'i'S
(By Sri.B.§3,Vishwar1ath;vfP.d*v"forfR1 ,
R2 [AB'rv{.1)V'&AB:_{2} sail» ' '
under Section 96 of C.P.C
against th__e" decree dated 26.07.2005
passed ,in O";S§_No.1€;78/1983 on the file of the 24th
.0 V.'-Ad'd1:'City Ciyil Bangalore, decreeing the suit for
_
Thiisv coming on for admission this day, the
' " " -- V' Court.' delivered the following: -
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the L.Rs. of the 1551 defendant
against the judgment and decree passed in
t%:L/t
1′”
am.
O.S.No.1678/83 dated 26.07.2005 on the file of the 2491
Add1.City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
2. The parties would be referred 0′
ranking before the trial court.
3. Respondent no.1 uthze plaintiff
no.2 is the 2nd defendant. onefor declaration
that the registered satiefldeed ‘by 2nd defendant
in favour ofVt}j1e.__iSt 30.52.05 is null and
Void.
Th0e’0cas.eé’of -plaintiff is that the land bearing
Sy.No.1’6.3f 4 guntas and Sy.No.164
measuring t8″‘a:cres guntas belonged to the plaintiff.
,0 Subseeiiiently, survey numbers were changed as 346,
Plaintiff purchased the suit schedule
property “under the registered sale deed dated
0 0(3.__.1n1_ttit953 for a consideration of Rs.i,500/– from his
sister Sn1t.Krishnamma. Since the date of
Mpurehase, the plaintiff has been in possession and;
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 15% defendant
claimed his right over the suit schedule property on the
$32
basis of the alleged sale deed dated 30.12.1965 and in
this regard, he tried to interfere with the _4.;:)1a1r1t_iffs
possession on 1 4.07′ . 1 981. T111 14. 0’7 . 198 it
was not aware of any sale transaction”be”tv§feeni the V2.15?»
defendant and the 2nd defendant.;’_”r€i’né123’;~02.
defendant tried to urithdraw-.the ‘c’en1p.e.ns.ati§oi1-».aniount’
deposited in LAC ” alleged
that ever since frornthe the land by the
plaintiff, he defendants
have no irigiiét. the suit schedule
pr0P§rty’.v of summons, the 2nd
defendarit_ were brought on record.
ex–parte. Only the 1st
zappxeared and filed written statement and
co_ntes”tetd-the_ suit.
a suit was decreed earlier on 05.01.2000 and
the._.A1SiV”defendant T.Ramaiah filed R.F.A.No.350/2000
before this Court interalia alleging that he had no
wopportunity. This Court set aside the judgment and
decree with a direction to the parties to appear before
the trial court on 15.03.2004 without any notice and
trial court was directed to proceed with the matter.
Despite of opportunity, the 15′ defendant did not contest
the matter, as such the trail court decreed the,–:suit on
26.07.2005.
6. Learned Counsel for the
that after remand, 15′ defe1’1d_ant.__diedH
and his legal representatives were
nor his Counsel Sri.-l?§ar,t_ia f.”K_amath l”‘~–,la”ppeared;’f
unfortunately, the said learncti’p_:Co’t1_1f1sellhad also died in
2004 itself and it is thist~.cloI:1ter(t:,.’fi§li’ther the L.Rs. of
18*» dvefendant”Vnvor.,tiie’_”C,o11nsel could be present before
the trial. trial court decreed the suit
on the of the evidence of the plaintiff against
As such, he submitted that the decree is
~.one dead person and the same is liable to be
Se a$7;;.6 On the contrary, learned Counsel for the
.res’pondents submitted that, this Court has specifically
fidirected that the deceased defendant No.1 to appear
and contest the matter. However, he did not dispute
the death of 13’ defendant and his Counsel.
8. In View of the above submissions’,
arises for consideration is as toil
“Whether the ju_dgment’*and of it
the trial court requires,interference? A
9. It is not — vrelafter the order of
remand in ‘delendant died on
19.0 1 .2005; Vjfvas’..the”contesting defendant
who of the suit schedule
property; dispute that the Counsel
representing”theV«_ defendant was also no more. In
‘ _ these ;ciArcumstan’c*e-st, there was no one for contest of the
“suit, and the decree has been passed
against ‘dead person without bringing the L.Rs. on
reco1’d,__l* No doubt, memo could have been filed, but
“unfortunately, the Counsel was also dead. Under these
.. ,,_._eircumstances, the judgment and decree of the trial
court is required to be set aside. ;
10. Accordingly, appeal is allowed, the judgment
and decree passed by the trial court is set asidelg’-..£S:’.nce
the L.Rs. of the lst defendant have filed
proper to remand the mattertrperini-ttingii’jthlei
appellants to come on record as defevndant
l[h]. Plaintiff is directed to”th__e ‘of the V it
plaint. Defendant Nos. l[a) -andhtheivplaiintiff shall
appear before the tria1l:c.oLi1*tV Plaintiff is
permitted topvfilej an further L.Rs.
of the if on record. Trial
to the matter after the
L.Rs. flare’ H
sd/4
…..