- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24224 RSA No. 2039 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2039 OF 2013 (DEC-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNIYELLAMMA W/O. LATE KAKAPPA MAJOR, R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562125 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI MUNIYAPPA S/O. LATE KAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562125 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 2. SRI. VENKATASWAMY S/O. LATE KAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24224 RSA No. 2039 of 2013 SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562125 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 3. SRI. ANNANGAPPA S/O. LATE BERIKAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562125 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 4. NARAYANAPPA S/O. ANNANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562125 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 5. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE BERIKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562125 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 6. SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NERIGE VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24224 RSA No. 2039 of 2013 ANEKAL TALUK - 562125 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMED SADIQH B A.,C/R3-R6 (BY SRI.B.L.PRAVEEN KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R1 (BY SRI.RAMESH ADITYA ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 21.11.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.335/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 19.10.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.926/2006 (OLD O.S.NO.1451/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & JMFC., ANEKAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24224 RSA No. 2039 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the respondents filed a memo which reads as follows: "The Respondent respectfully submits the following for consideration of this Hon'ble Court: 1. The Respondent had filed O.S. No. 926/2006 against the Appellant seeking the following reliefs: a) A declaration that the Respondent is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property; b) Setting aside of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 551/1997; c) A permanent injunction restraining the Appellant from alienating the suit schedule property and from interfering with the Respondent's possession thereof. 2. The said suit (O.S. No. 926/2006) was decreed in favour of the Respondent as prayed for in the plaint. The Appellant preferred R.A. No. 335/2010 challenging the said judgment and decree. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. 3. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the courts below, the Appellant filed the present second appeal before this Hon'ble Court, raising the following substantial questions of law; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24224 RSA No. 2039 of 2013 a) Whether the Trial Court erred in law in setting aside its own earlier judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 551/1997, which had attained finality, effectively sitting in appeal over its own judgment? And whether the First Appellate Court committed a further Illegality in confirming such action? b) Whether the Plaintiffs can maintain a second suit seeking declaratory relief, despite having suffered a decree to the contrary in O.S. No. 551/1997, which has attained finality? 4. During the course of arguments in the present appeal, the Respondent came across binding precedent of this Hon'ble Court holding that a judgment and decree passed by a competent civil court cannot be challenged in a separate and independent suit, and such challenge must be made only through appropriate appellate or review proceedings. 5. The Respondent submits that the case has strong merit, and both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have passed detailed judgments in favour of the Respondent on all substantive issues. However, if the appeal is allowed solely on the technical ground that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 551/1997 could not have been challenged by filing a fresh suit (O.S. No. 926/2006), grave and irreparable injury and hardship will be caused to the Respondent, who will be left remediless despite having succeeded on merits before two courts. 6. Therefore, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair adjudication, the Respondent humbly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24224 RSA No. 2039 of 2013 seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw O.S. No. 926/2006, with liberty to: a) Prefer an appeal or review against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 551/1997; and/or b) File appropriate proceedings, including appeal/review against Misc. No. 77/2002 / MA No. 47/2003, before the competent Jurisdictional court, so that the dispute between the parties can be adjudicated afresh on merits. 7. The Respondent prays that such liberty be granted to ensure that justice is not denied on procedural or technical grounds. PRAYER In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: • Permit the Respondent to withdraw 0.S.No. 926/2006; • Grant liberty to initiate appropriate appellate or review proceedings in respect of O.S. No. 551/1997 and/or Misc. No. 77/2002/MA No. 47/2003 before the appropriate court; and • Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. • Further the Appellant shall not alienate or create third party interest in the suit schedule property for the period of 1 month - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24224 RSA No. 2039 of 2013 or till filing of the proceedings as aforesaid whichever is earlier." 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has no objections for withdrawing the suit with a aforesaid liberty. 3. The memo is placed on record. 4. Respondent No.6 is permitted to withdraw the suit with a liberty sought in the memo. 5. As respondent No.6 has withdrawn the suit, In view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 6. In case if respondent No.6 initiate an appropriate proceedings as alleged in the memo, all the contentions of the parties are kept open. If the respondent No.6 initiates any proceedings, the time spent in suit and appeals shall be excluded. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24224 RSA No. 2039 of 2013 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant will not alienate the suit schedule property for a period of one month. 8. Undertaking is placed on record. 9. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA.No.1/2014 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.1/2014 is disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5