Karnataka High Court
Sri S.P Raju vs Smt.Lakshmamma on 5 June, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19241-DB
RFA No. 1847 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1847 OF 2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI S.P RAJU
S/O LATE G PUTTASWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A KADAMBA NILAYA, NO.120,
IST CROSS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
T DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 057
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L M RAMAIAH GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
Digitally signed W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
by SHARADA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
VANI B R/A GOPALAPURA VILLAGE
Location: HIGH RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI POST
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 073
2. SMT MUTTAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
W/O GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3. SMT GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
W/O PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19241-DB
RFA No. 1847 of 2013
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3
ARE R/AT SASUVEGHATTA VILLAGE
TARABANAHALLI POST
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 560 088
4. JAYARAMAIAH
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT SASUVEGHATTA VILLAGE
TARABANAHALLI POST
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
PIN - 560 088
5. SRI MUTTAIAH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT SASUVEGHATTA VILLAGE
TARABANAHALLI POST
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 560 088
6. B T GOVINDARAJU
S/O SRI THIMMAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
7. GANGARAJU
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE
NAGASANDRA POST
BANGALORE - 560 073
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:19241-DB
RFA No. 1847 of 2013
8. M K RAVI
S/O KUTTAPPA NAYAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.16 AYYAPPA NAGARA
BANGALORE - 560 013
9. H MANOHAR
S/O ATTAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A NO.252, 3RD MAIN
JAYAMARUTHI ROAD
NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 096
10. SHANKARAPPA
S/O SRI GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.28, 6TH CROSS
IST MAIN, LAKSHMIDEVEI
NAGARA, NANDINI LAYOUT POST
BANGALORE - 560 096
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M ERAPPA REDDY ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;
SRI.H.A.MANJUNATHA ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI.YADAVA KARKERA ADVOCATE FOR R-5;
SRI.B.S.JEEVAN KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R-6, ADVOCATES
V/O DTD 25/6/18, R-7 & R-8 ARE DECLARED AS SERVED
R-9 AND R-10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED.30.01.2012 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.281/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER,FAST
TRACK COURT-V, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:19241-DB
RFA No. 1847 of 2013
JUDGMENT
This Appeal by a non-party with leave seeks to lay a challenge to the Judgment & Decree dated 30.01.2012 whereby learned Judge of the Fast Track Court - V has granted a Preliminary Decree for Partition & Separate Possession of subject properties.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that, his grievance is to the extent that the subject Judgment & Decree state that, they shall be binding on the purchasers of the properties eo nomine to the suit in question and that observation has the characteristic of making the Judgment and Decree in rem which is impermissible inasmuch as, this is not one of the four satisfied in rem jurisdictions namely, Insolvency, Matrimonial, Probate & Admiralty and setting aside of any statute.
3. He further submits that so far as those purchasers who were parties to the suit or who were subsequently made parties, may arguably be binding but -5- NC: 2024:KHC:19241-DB RFA No. 1847 of 2013 not on those who were not arrayed as parties, they having bought the subject properties anterior to institution of the suit. We are in agreement with this submission inasmuch as, records disclose that the Appellant had acquired subject properties by way of registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.2006, the suit having been instituted only on 09.03.2011.
In the above circumstances, though we do not upset the Judgment & Decree, we disposed off this Appeal by making it clear that nothing therein shall bind the Appellant herein.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9