- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49042 RSA No. 2041 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2041 OF 2013 (RES) BETWEEN: SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O. PAPANNA, AGED 48 YEARS R/A NO.68, MARALABAGILU, WARD NO.12, DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110 …APPELLANT (BY SMT/MISS KAVYASHREE K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. SRI. Y. VINAY S/O. LATE BYRAPPA Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49042 RSA No. 2041 of 2013 AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 3. SRI. ASHOK S/O. LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT C/O CHANDRAPPA BEHIND T.B., INDIRANAGAR CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101 4. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE CHIKKAMALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A KURUBARA BEEDHI MARALABAGILU ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 5. SRI. NAGARAJA S/O. LATE CHIKKAMALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A KURUBARA BEEDHI MARALABAGILU ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49042 RSA No. 2041 of 2013 (BY SRI. D L KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 SRI. K.B. CHANDRASHEKAR SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.04.2025, APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R4 & R5) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 7.9.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DTD 18.12.2010 PASSED ON IA IN Ex.P.NO.13/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE IA NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER XXIX RULES 97, 98, 99, 100 AND 101 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2013 passed in R.A.No.4 of 2011 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli and Order on I.A.No.2 dated 18.12.2010 passed in E.P.No.13/2004 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49042 RSA No. 2041 of 2013 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the executing court. The appellant was the cross objector, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the decree holders, and respondent Nos.4 and 5 were the judgment debtors. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The decree holders filed a suit in O.S.No.241 of 1991 for the relief of a specific performance of a contract against the judgment debtors. The said suit was decreed. During the pendency of the said suit, the objector/obstructer filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court. The order passed on the said application has attained finality. However, cross objection has not prosecuted the case. Thereafter, the trial Court decreed the suit of the decree holders. The decree holders filed an execution petition to execute - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49042 RSA No. 2041 of 2013 the decree passed in the said suit i.e., O.S.No.241 of 1991 in E.P.No.13 of 2004. In the said execution petition, the obstructer filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the property shown in the sale deed is the property of the obstructer. The said application was opposed by the decree holders. The executing court dismissed the I.A.No.2 with cost vide Order dated 18.12.2010. 5. The obstructer aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.2, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.4 of 2011 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli. 6. The first appellate court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: i. Whether learned trial judge erred in rejecting application filed by appellant under Order 21 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49042 RSA No. 2041 of 2013 Rule 97 to 101 of the Civil Procedure Code and interference in the said finding is required? ii. What order? 7. The first appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire material on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 07.09.2013. The obstructer, aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.2 and the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.4 of 2011, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 8. There is a dispute regarding the property number. After arguing the matter for sometime, the obstructer has filed a memo, which reads as under: "1. It is submitted that, the current Appellant is the original Defendant No.2 in a suit for specific performance filed by Late. Byraрра/Defendant No. 1 (Predecessor of Respondent No.1 to 43 herein) on an agreement of sale executed by Late. Chikkamalleshappa (Predecessor of Respondent No. 4 and 5) in O.S No.241/1991 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49042 RSA No. 2041 of 2013 2. It is submitted that, the original Defendant No. 1 had executed a sale deed with respect to property bearing No.766/711/688 with respect to measurements disclosed in the sale deeds thereto and consequent to the same the current Appellant impleaded herself in the suit for specific performance as Defendant No.2 and upon the full trail the suit came to be dismissed insofar as the Defendant No. 2 on the ground that the property purchased by the Defendant No. 2 was distinct and separate as that of the property claimed by the Plaintiff. 3. It is submitted that, it could be seen from the records that thereafter though the suit was filed by the Plaintiff w.r.t to land bearing No.711/711/688 (New No. 799/711/688) the decree and the Court sale deed was executed w.r.t property bearing New No.799/711/668. Thus, leading the original Defendant to file an objector application which was dismissed leading to first appeal and consequent Second appeal. 4. It is submitted that, the Defendant no.2/objector/Appellant herein being not concerned with property bearing New No. 799/711/688 in terms of the sale deed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49042 RSA No. 2041 of 2013 executed by the Defendant No. 1 is not concerned with the agreement schedule property Viz., 711/711/688 (New No. 799/711/688) which the Plaintiff claim to be the subject matter of the agreement viz., the measurements contained therein and the current Appellant would be satisfied if the Judgments are clarified that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 should not lay claim over property bearing 711/711/688 (New No.799/711/688 and also with the finding that Defendant No.2/objector / Appellant herein should not be and no right is claimed as to the property concerned to the respondent herein with the property bearing No. 711/711/688 (New No. 799/711/688) the above memo be taken on record and the matter be disposed to meet the ends of justice and Equity." 9. From the perusal of the memo filed by the obstructer it is stated that the obstructers have no right or interest and they will not claim any right, title or interest over the property bearing number 711/711/688. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49042 RSA No. 2041 of 2013 10. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/decree holders also filed a memo stating that common vendor of the obstructer and respondent Nos.1 to 3/decree holders, namely Chikkamalleshappa had executed an agreement of sale dated 09.11.1990 (Ex.P2) regarding the portion of the house property in favour of husband of respondent No.1/decree holder and also executed the registered sale deed dated 29.08.1991 i.e. (Ex.P9) in favour of obstructer/appellant regarding the other portion of the house property. The Khaneshumari old No.711/711/688, New No.766/711/668 was assigned to the property of respondent Nos.1 to 3/decree holders. The extent of house property of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is measuring east to west 45 feet, and north to south 17 feet. Likewise, the Khaneshumari old No.711/711/668, New No.766/711/668 was assigned to the house property of the obstructer which is measuring east to west 22 + 14/2 = 36/2 = 18 feet and north to south 58 + 38/2 = 96/2=48 feet. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49042 RSA No. 2041 of 2013 The boundaries of both the properties are different. But, the new number assigned to both the properties are one and the same. The respondent Nos.1 to 3/decree holders will not claim the property of the obstructer mentioned under Ex.P9 registered sale deed. 11. Memos are taken on record. In view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 13. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration, and they are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV