- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38190 RSA No. 864 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 864 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI N B GANGADHARA S/O. LATE. N BOREGOWDA, R/AT NO. 11 AND 12, REDROS LAYOUT, IMMADAHALLI ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE 560066 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.L.JAGADEESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. RAKSHITHA D J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI J R SAMUEL S/O. JOHN SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO. 506, SPRINGDALE, 1ST CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560034. SRI. SRINIVASA ACHARI, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 2. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE. SRINIVASA ACHARI, MAJOR, 3. SRI. PRABHAKAR S/O. LATE. V SRINIVAS ACHARI, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38190 RSA No. 864 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4 SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE. VI. SRINIVAS ACHARI, MAJOR RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ALL ARE R/AT VITTASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560068 5. SRI. VENKATA KRISHNA ACHARI SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS WHO ARE ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.6 TO 9 6. SRI. GOVINDA ACHARI S/O. LATE. VENKATASWAMY ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKA BAZAR, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK- 560063 7. PAPACHARI S/O. LATE. VENKATASWAMY ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT VITTASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK- 560068 8. RAMACHARI S/O. LATE. VENKATASWAMY ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT HONGASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK- 560068 9. BHOOLAKSHAMMA D/O. LATE. VENKATARASWAMY ACHARI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38190 RSA No. 864 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT VITTASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK- 560068 10. SRI. PRABHAKAR S/O. LATE. V SRINIVAS ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/.AT VITTASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK- 560068 11. SRI. OABHA REDDY S/O. LATE. NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK- 560068 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DTD 17.11.2022 R6 TO R9 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R5; R6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DTD 25.09.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R8 AND R11 IS H/S) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2019 PASSED IN R.A NO.430/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.2205/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38190 RSA No. 864 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.D.L.Jagadish learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.K.K.Vasanthlc appearing for the respondent. 2. At the outset, even though appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the First Appellate court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court without appreciating the fact that the plaintiff purchased the suit site in terms of deed of sale dated 24.02.1995 produced at Ex.P1 which was executed by Sri.Srinivasachari and his son Govindachari who are also the vendors in deed of sale dated 27.07.2005 executed in favour of the defendant No.9 in respect of the very same property? 3. It is the submission of Sri.K.K Vasanth that suit property is already sold by the appellant in favour of third party viz., Sri.B.R.Akbar and Sri.Allabaksh by registered sale deed dated 03.06.2016. 4. It is further submitted by Sri.K.K.Vasanth that purchasers in the sale deed dated 03.06.2016, have further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38190 RSA No. 864 of 2020 sold the property in favour of Smt.Reshma, who is none other than the wife of one of the purchaser's in the sale deed dated 03.06.2016 viz., Sri. Allabaksh. 5. It is also the submission of Sri.K.K.Vasanth that subsequent purchaser of the suit property viz., Smt.Reshma has already filed a suit in O.S.No.1456/2022 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District wherein the respondents are contesting the suit. 6. In view of the above factual aspects and having perused the copies of the sale deeds in favour of Sri.B.R.Akbar and Sri.Allabaksh and Smt.Reshma, this court is of the considered opinion that appellant has lost all rights to prosecute the appeal further. 7. Accordingly, there is no necessity for this Court to further consider the substantial question of law which has been framed by this Court on 12.02.2024 inasmuch as at the time of admitting the second appeal itself appellant had lost right, title and interest over the suit property to prosecute the appeal further. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38190 RSA No. 864 of 2020 8. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) However, the subsequent purchaser shall prosecute the suit and respondents are entitled to canvass their favourable points in the pending suit in accordance with law. (iii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97