- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42675 RSA No. 1157 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2013 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. DEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS W/O LATE BOOKEGOWDA R/AT BOGADHI MYSORE TALUK-570 001. 2. JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE BOOKEGOWDA R/AT BOGADHI MYSORE TALUK-570 001. 3. SMT. SANNANANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O MANCHEGOWDA R/AT SINGRANAHALLI BILIKERE HOBLI MYSORE TALUK-571 103. 4. SMT. MANGALAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O GANGEGOWDA R/AT HALLADA MANGANAHALLI H.D. KOTE TALUK-571 114. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANMOHAN .P.N, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS No. 2 TO 4; V/O DATED 24.04.2025 APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST APPELLANT No.1) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42675 RSA No. 1157 of 2013 AND: 1. SMT. DEVEERAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O HONNEGOWDA R/AT KURIKEMPANA DODDI MADDUR TALUK-571 428. 2. SMT. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O DEVEGOWDA R/AT KURIKEMPANA DODDI MADDUR TALUK-571 428. 3. DEEPAK VARVANI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY R/AT No. 70/A, RAMASREE III MAIN ROAD BHARAT HOUSING CO-OP SOCIETY LAYOUT BTM LAYOUT, II STAGE BANGALORE-560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.01.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.353/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.625/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42675 RSA No. 1157 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.1 passed away and he submits that the appellants have not filed necessary applications to bring the legal representatives of the deceased appellant No.1. Hence, the appeal abates against appellant No.1. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed as abated. 2. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hemareddy (dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.14 has held as follows: "14. Admittedly, steps were not taken for substitution in regard to the second appellant. The appeal, therefore, abated qua him as is declared by Order XXII Rule 3(2). Though this is all that the Order XXII Rule 2 declares, the principle has evolved that in certain kinds of litigation, the consequences of abatement qua a party are not limited to the deceased party alone but it affects all the other parties 1 (2019) 6 SCC 756 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42675 RSA No. 1157 of 2013 and the litigation itself. In other words, a suit or an appeal as the case may be, would suffer an untimely demise by the proceeding abating as a whole." 3. Also in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra (deceased) Thr. Lrs. and Others vs. Parasram and Others2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the judgment in the case of Hemareddy (referred to supra) in paragraph No.19 and in paragraph No.25, and held that the underlying principle in the aforesaid decisions is that in respect of the subject matter of a suit or a proceeding arising therefrom, the Court cannot pass inconsistent decrees. In consequence, if, due to non- substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party, the decree qua the deceased party has attained finality by abatement of proceedings qua him, the Court cannot proceed further if a reversal or modification of the decree under appeal would result in conflicting or inconsistent 2 2025 SCC Online SC 1472 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42675 RSA No. 1157 of 2013 decrees. Therefore, in such a situation, the appeal would abate in its entirety. 4. Admittedly, the appellants have failed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased appellant No.1. Since the appeal is filed against the judgment in a suit for partition and separate possession and as the common interest is involved, the entire appeal abates. Accordingly, considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Suresh Chandra and Hemareddy (referred to supra), the appeal is dismissed as abated. 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IA’s, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS