- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.707 OF 2023 (MOR) BETWEEN: 1. NARASIMHIMHEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. C.N.KRISHNA S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SHANTHAMMA W/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 4. C.N. PRAKASHA S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 5. SATHISHA S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 6. CHENNEGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNABASAVEGOWDA @ SANNA BUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT CHINYA VILLAGE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE ERANNA DEAD BY HIS LRS. MAHADEVAMMA, D/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH W/O LATE RAMAIAH @ KAPANIGOWDA R/AT NO.91, VEERABHADRA SWAMY NILAYA 8TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN CITY BED LAYOUT BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 50. 2. HEERABHADRANNA S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED MAJOR R/AT CHANNANKOPPALU VILLAGE KASTURABA LAYOUT MADAGERI ROAD KIKKERI AND POST K.R.PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571432. 3. MARIYAPPA S/O LATE ERANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SHIVARAJU S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED MAJOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 4. PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED MAJOR 5. RAYAPPA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED MAJOR 6. SHIVAKKA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED MAJOR ALL ARE R/AT HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159. 7. VIJENDRA S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED MAJOR R/AT NAGAIAHYANNA KOPPALU KUMBARA BEEDI SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. 8. ESHWARA S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED MAJOR 9. RAJA S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED MAJOR 10. MANJA S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED MAJOR ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKAPPANAHALLI HIRIYUR POST - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577 302. 11. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE MUTHAIAH AGED MAJOR 12. LOKESH S/O LATE MUTHAIAH AGED MAJOR 13. NAGESHA S/O LATE MUTHAIAH AGED MAJOR ALL ARE R/AT KEREKATTE VILLAGE HIRIYUR POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 302. 14. NARASIGOWDA, S/O LATE CHENNABASAVEGOWDA @ SANNA BUDDEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. BORAMMA W/O LATE NARASIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 15. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE NARASIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 16. MAHESHA S/O LATE NARASIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 17. SARASWATHI D/O LATE NARASIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 RESPONDENTS NO.14 TO 17 ARE R/AT CHINYA VILLAGE HANAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAN MALGE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R8) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.48/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA DISMISSING AND CONFIRMING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.127/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Dn.) AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2023 passed in R.A.No.48/2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2008 passed in O.S.No.127/2003 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), and JMFC, Nagamangala. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for redemption of mortgage under mortgage deed dated 17.10.1968 regarding the suit schedule property, directing the defendants to receive the mortgage money, and return the mortgage deed dated 17.10.1968 with an endorsement of discharge, and to deliver the suit schedule property and for the mesne profits. The plaintiffs along with their deceased brothers Veerabhadraiah and Muthaiah, the father of plaintiff Nos.3 to 6, 8 and 9 had mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of Channabasavegowda @ Sannabuddegowda i.e., father of the defendants on 17.10.1968 under a registered - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 mortgage deed, on receiving mortgage money of Rs.1,000/- to discharge the debt in O.S.No.1682/1968, and O.S.No.1824/1967 and to meet household expenses. The said mortgage has been for a period of five years which is a usufructuary mortgage and mortgagee was put in possession of the suit schedule property. It was agreed that mortgagers have to redeem the mortgage on payment of mortgage money by obtaining an endorsement of discharge from the mortgagee along with delivery of possession of suit schedule land without crop. The plaintiffs have approached the defendants in the second week of May, 2003, and offered to accept the mortgage amount, requested the defendants to redeem the mortgage; however, the defendants refused to redeem the mortgage. The plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the mortgage money and to get redemption of mortgage. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file the suit for redemption of mortgage, and thereby direct the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 defendants to handover possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendants filed a written statement admitting execution of mortgage deed dated 17.10.1968, and contended that suit is barred by limitation, and the suit is bad for non-compliance of Section 60 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as the plaintiffs have not issued a notice as required under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, on these grounds, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have refused to redeem the mortgage by receiving the mortgage money and to hand over the possession of suit property in favour of plaintiffs? 2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of non-compliance of statutory notice as contemplated U/s 60 of T.P. Act? 3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the relief's of redemption of mortgage and for possession and for mesne profits and other relief's claimed in the plaint? 5) What order or decree? 6. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, examined the Special Power of Attorney holder as P.W.1, examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. In rebuttal, the defendants examined defendant No.1 as D.W.1, and marked 2 documents as Exs.D1 and D2. 7. The Trial Court, after assessing verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit with costs vide judgment dated 16.04.2008, holding that the defendants are entitled to receive the mortgage money of Rs.1,000/- which is in Court deposit, and to redeem the mortgage by delivering back the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and to execute an endorsement of discharge in the said mortgage deed within three months. On their failure, the plaintiffs are at liberty to get the delivery of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 the suit property through the process of Court. As far as mesne profits, a separate enquiry is to be held under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. 8. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.127/2003 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.48/2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangla. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.127/2003, dated: 16-4-2008 is illegal, erroneous, capricious and not based on legal principles and as such it is fit to be set- aside and calls for interference by this Court? 2. What order or decree? 9. The First Appellate Court, after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the appeal with cost vide judgment dated 08.02.2023. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the defendants, and learned counsel for the plaintiff. 11. Learned counsel for the defendants contend that prior to filing of the suit, plaintiffs have not issued a statutory notice under Section 60 of Transfer of Property Act, and the suit is not maintainable. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the Courts below, and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He also submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for caveator/plaintiff appeared through virtual mode and supported the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the record, considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 14. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and the deceased brothers Veerabhadraiah and Muthaiah executed a registered mortgage deed dated 17.10.1968 for mortgage amount of Rs.1,000/- in favour of the defendants’ father. The plaintiffs delivered possession of the suit property in favour of the defendants’ father. The plaintiffs, approached the defendants in the second week of May, 2003 and called upon the defendants to receive the mortgage amount and deliver the possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants refused to redeem the mortgage. 15. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, examined Special Power of Attorney holder as P.W.1. She reiterated the averments of the plaint in the examination-in-chief, and produced the documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P8, and also examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3. Defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief, and to establish that the mortgagers have executed - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 mortgage deed, produced the original mortgage deed as Ex.D1, and based on the mortgage deed, names have also been changed in the RTC Extract i.e., Ex.D2. The plaintiffs offered to pay the mortgage amount to get redeemed the mortgage. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court considered the provisions of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.17 of the judgment recorded its findings as follows: “Section 60 of Transfer of Property Act: Right of Mortgagor to Redeem.— At any time after the principal money has become [due] the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver [to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee], (b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at the cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to him or to such third person as he may direct, or to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument) to have registered an acknowledgement in writing that - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished: Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by [decree] of a Court. The right conferred by this Section is called a right to redeem and a suit to enforce it is called a suit for redemption. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to render invalid any provision to the effect that, if the time fixed for payment of the principal money has been allowed to pass or no such time has been fixed, the mortgagee shall be entitled to reasonable notice before payment or tender of such money.” 16. Both the Courts have considered Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, and have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments, and no substantial question of law arise for my consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I concur with the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33213 RSA No. 707 of 2023 ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgments and decrees passed by Courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50