Karnataka High Court
RSA/1464/2021 of SRI. S KRISHNAPPA Vs SRI PAPANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS on 7 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010041732021 NC: 2026:KHC:41938 RSA No. 1464 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1464 OF 2021 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SULALAPPA AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1464 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. S. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE SULALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
R/AT KOLAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKBALLAPUR TALUK
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. PAPANNA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
SMT. GUNDAMMA
2ND W/O LATE S. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
2.
SRI. K.P. GOPALAPPA
S/O LATE S. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3.
SRI. K.P. SADANANDA
S/O LATE S. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
4.
SRI. K.P. VENKATESH
S/O LATE S. PAPANNA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
4(a)
SMT. RAKSHITHA
W/O LATE K.P.VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4(b)
KUMARI GOWTHAMI
D/O LATE K.P.VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
4(c)
KUMARI KUSHI
D/O LATE K.P.VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
4(d)
MASTER HARSHITH GOWDA
S/O LATE K.P.VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS
SINCE RESPONDENT NO.4(b to d) ARE
MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
I.E., RESPONDENT NO.4(a).
5.
SRI. K.P. PRAKASH
S/O LATE S. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
6.
SMT. K.P. SUMITHRAMMA
D/O LATE S. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
7.
SMT. K.P. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE S. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7 ARE
R/AT KOLAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562 101.
HC-KAR
8.
SMT. K.P. SHOBHA
D/O LATE S. PAPANNA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT GUNTIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 207.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2
R3, R4(a), R5 AND R6;
R4(b to d) ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY R4(a); SRI. J.R. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT-9 IN I.A.No.2/2025; SR. B.V.SRINIVAS, AND SRI. G.V. NARASIMHAMURTHY, ADVOCATES FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT-10 IN
I.A.No.2/2025)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.11.2020
PASSED IN R.A.NO.79/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 18.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.339/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant is represented through Power of Attorney holder and copy of the memo along with Power of Attorney is also produced before the Court.
HC-KAR
2. The appellant, respondent Nos.1 to 3, 4(a), 5 and 6 are present and respondent Nos.4(b) to (d) are minors and represented by respondent No.4(a).
3. The parties have filed the compromise petition i.e., appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 3, legal representatives of respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.5 and 6. The respondent Nos.7 and 8 are not before the Court, but they are also the legal representatives of original plaintiff-Sri Pappanna. In terms of the compromise, it is very clear that the appellant claims only 1 acre of land and in terms of the compromise as agreed, if he is having excess of 1 acre, he is ready to hand over the same to respondent Nos.1 to 8, since they are the legal representatives of original plaintiff-Sri Pappanna and even in the absence of respondent Nos.7 and 8, though they are not represented, they are also beneficiaries of this compromise and there is no conflict of interest.
4. In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is allowed. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of the compromise.
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4(a) i.e., legal representatives of original plaintiff-Sri Pappanna has filed I.A.No.2/2025 to bring respondent Nos.9 and 10 and this application is objected by respondent Nos.9 and 10 that they are not necessary parties and they were not parties in the original suit and also in the appeal and grievance of respondents cannot be urged in the second appeal. Hence, question of considering I.A.No.2/2025 does not arise and I.A.No.2/2025 is dismissed granting liberty to the respondents i.e., legal representatives of original plaintiff that if they have any grievance, they can redress their grievance in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9