- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3171 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 969 OF 2025 IN MFA No.3171 OF 2025 BETWEEN: GAYATHRI K W/O KITTA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING IN BINTRAVALLI REVENUE QUARTERS BALAGADI VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 126 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. YASHAS K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDENT OF JANATHA COLONY SHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH JALAHALLI WEST BENGALURU-560 015 2 . SRI. SRINIVASA M.T S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF JANATHA COLONY SHETTIHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST BENGALURU-560 015 3 . SMT. PADMA @ PADMAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.204, JANATHA COLONY NEAR NARASIMHA TEMPLE SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU-560 015 4 . SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 192, RAJABEEDI DODDABOMMSANDRA VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097 5 . SRI. RAMACHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF SETTIHALLI BENGALURU NORTH, JALAHALLI WEST BENGALURU-560 015 6 . SMT. SUJATHAMMA D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAIAH W/O ASHEATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT. MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD NEAR AMARAPURAM BUS STOP - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 MADAKASIRA TALUK ANANTHPURAM DISTRICT 7 . SMT. LOKAMMA W/O LATE RAMALINGA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT GOLLAPALLI, PENUGONDA TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515 110 8 . SMT. NANDINI D/O LATE RAMALINGA W/O PRASAD AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 9 . GEETHA D/O LATE RAMALINGA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 8 AND 9 ARE R/AT NO. 8-1-22, BTP ROAD RAYADURGAM, RAYADURGAM TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTRICT-515 865 10 . PRABHAKAR S/O LATE NARSIMHULU W/O KEMPARAJU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT. NO. 45, NANDAGOKULA 8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK 3RD STAGE, SG HALLI BASAVESHWARANGARA BENGALUR-560 079 11 . SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHULU W/O KEMPARAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT. NO.45, NANDAGOKULA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK 3RD STAGE, SG HALLI BASAVESHWARANGARA BENGALUR-560 079 12 . SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT CHIKKASANDRA, BEHIND TO SRI. M. VISHWESHWARAIAH SCHOOL, SHETTIHALLI BENGALURU-560 057 13 . SRI. NAGARAJA S/O LATE NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD NEAR AMARAPURAM BUS STOP MADAKASIRA TALUK ANANTHPURAM DISTRICT-515 301 14 . SMT. GANGAMMA S/O LATE ANJINAPPA W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT ANANTHAPURA COURT ROAD ANANTHAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515 001 15 . VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT BUKKAPATNA FORT NEAR YSR REDDY STATUE DHARMAVARAM TALUK ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515 001 16 . RAMAKRISHNAPPA W/O LATE YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 17 . SMT. PAVITHRA D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 18 . SMT. CHANDRIKA D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 16, 17 AND 18 ARE R/AT BANDARLAHALLI THONDEBHAVI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA-561 211 19 . SMT. NAGARTHNA D/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 20 . SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE VENU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 21 . TEJASHWINI W/O LATE VENU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 22 . THEJA S/O LATE VENU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 19 TO 22 ARE R/AT GOLLAPALLI, PENUGONDA TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTIRCT ANDRAPRADESH-515 110 23 . SRI. SRIRAMULU S/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO. 11-1-372 ARAVINDANAGARA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 ANANTHPURA TOWN ANDRAPRADESH-515 001 24 . SRI. ASHWATHANARAYANA S/O LATE RAMASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT, NO.44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE KURUBARAHALLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL -561 203 25 . RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.16, 1ST FLOOR ABOVE KARUNYA HI-TECH DIAGNOSTIC CENTER 6TH CROSS, SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD SHETTIHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST POST BENGALURU 560 015 26 . SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA W/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT UJINI, HOSAHALLI, HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-561 203 27 . SMT. RAMAKKA D/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA W/O KRISHNMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT GUNJURU, SS GHATI THUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-561 203 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 28 . SMT. SUVARNAMMA D/O LATE RAMASWAMY GOWDA W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT YAKARANAHALLI, HOSALLI HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-561 203 29 . SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE RAMANJINEYA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS BEHIND THRIVENI SCHOOL PENUGONDA TOWN AND TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515 110 30 . SMT. RAMAKKA D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA W/O ASWATHNARAYANA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT, NO. 44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE KURUBARAHALLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-561 203 31 . SMT. RANI D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA W/O RAMACHANDRA C/O ASWATHNARAYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT, NO. 44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE KURUBARAHALLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-561 203 32 . SRI. ADINARAYANA S/O LATE RAMANJINEYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 33 . SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O ADINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 34 . SMT. PADMA D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 27 TO 29 ARE R/AT BEHIND THRIVENI SCHOOL PENUGONDA TOWN AND TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH 515 110 35 . SMT. ANURADHA D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO. M-7, POLICE QUARTOS OLD BUILDING, AUDUGODI BENGALURU-560 030 36 . SMT. GANGADEVI W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 37 . SMT. ARUNA D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 38 . SMT. ANITHA D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 39 . SRI. MARUTHI S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 40 . SRI. BALAJI D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.36 TO 40 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 ALL RESIDING AT ANANTHPURAM COURT ROAD ANANTHPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT ANANTHPURA-515 001 41 . SMT. JYOTHI W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 42 . SRI. RAJU S/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 43 . SMT. SWEETY D/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 44 . SMT. HAPPY W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 45 . SMT. LOVELY W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 41 TO 45 ARE RESIDENT OF 4-A, FORTUNE GREEN APARTMENT, 5TH LANE KRISHNANAGARA GUNTOOR TALUK AND DISTRICT 46 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) OFFICER AT 39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING SHANTHI GRUHA, 4TH FLOOR - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG , ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.28.01.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.X IN O.S.NO.460/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING IA NO.X FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 OF CPC. IN MFA No.969 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDENT OF JANATHA COLONY SHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH JALAHALLI WEST BENGALURU-560 015 2 . SRI. SRINIVASA M.T S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF JANATHA COLONY SHETTIHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST BENGALURU-560 015 3 . SMT. PADMA @ PADMAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA W/O VENKATESH - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.204, JANATHA COLONY NEAR NARASIMHA TEMPLE SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 015 4 . SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 192, RAJABEEDI DODDABOMMSANDRA VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097 5 . SRI. RAMACHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF SETTIHALLI BENGALURU NORTH, JALAHALLI WEST BENGALURU-560 015 APPELLANTS NO.1, 3, 4 AND 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPA HOLDER APPELLANT NO.2 SRI. SRINIVASA M.T S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE) - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 AND: 1 . SMT. SUJATHAMMA D/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAIAH W/O ASHEATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT. MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD NEAR AMARAPURAM BUS STOP MADAKASIRA TALUK ANANTHPURAM DISTRICT 2 . SMT. LOKAMMA W/O LATE RAMALINGA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT GOLLAPALLI, PENUGONDA TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515 110 3. SMT. NANDINI D/O LATE RAMALINGA W/O PRASAD AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 4 . GEETHA D/O LATE RAMALINGA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO. 8-1-22, BTP ROAD RAYADURGAM, RAYADURGAM TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTRICT-515 865 5 . PRABHAKAR S/O LATE NARSIMHULU W/O KEMPARAJU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT. NO. 45, NANDAGOKULA 8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK 3RD STAGE, SG HALLI - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 BASAVESHWARANGARA BENGALUR-560 079 6 . SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHULU W/O KEMPARAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT. NO.45, NANDAGOKULA 8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK 3RD STAGE, SG HALLI BASAVESHWARANGARA BENGALUR-560 079 7 . SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT CHIKKASANDRA, BEHIND TO SRI. M. VISHWESHWARAIAH SCHOOL, SHETTIHALLI BENGALURU-560 057 8 . SRI. NAGARAJA S/O LATE NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD NEAR AMARAPURAM BUS STOP MADAKASIRA TALUK ANANTHPURAM DISTRICT-515 301 9 . SMT. GANGAMMA S/O LATE ANJINAPPA W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT ANANTHAPURA COURT ROAD ANANTHAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515 001 10 . VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 R/AT BUKKAPATNA FORT NEAR YSR REDDY STATUE DHARMAVARAM TALUK ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515 001 11 . RAMAKRISHNAPPA W/O LATE YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 12 . SMT. PAVITHRA D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 13 . SMT. CHANDRIKA D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 11, 12 AND 13 ARE R/AT BANDARLAHALLI THONDEBHAVI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA-561 211 14 . SMT. NAGARTHNA D/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 15 . SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE VENU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 16 . TEJASHWINI W/O LATE VENU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 17 . THEJA S/O LATE VENU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 RESPONDENT NO. 14 TO 17 ARE R/AT GOLLAPALLI, PENUGONDA TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTIRCT ANDRAPRADESH-515 110 18 . SRI. SRIRAMULU S/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO. 11-1-372 ARAVINDANAGARA ANANTHPURA TOWN ANDRAPRADESH-515 001 19 . SRI. ASHWATHANARAYANA S/O LATE RAMASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT, NO.44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE KURUBARAHALLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT RETIRED POLICE 20 . RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.16, 1ST FLOOR ABOVE KARUNYA HI-TECH DIAGNOSTIC CENTER 6TH CROSS, SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD SHETTIHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST POST BENGALURU 560 015 21 . SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA W/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT UJINI, HOSAHALLI, HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 22 . SMT. RAMAKKA D/O LATE RAMASWAMYGOWDA W/O KRISHNMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT GUNJURU, S.S GHATI THUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 23 . SMT. SUVARNAMMA D/O LATE RAMASWAMY GOWDA W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT YAKARANAHALLI, HOSALLI HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 24 . SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE RAMANJINEYA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS BEHIND THRIVENI SCHOOL PENUGONDA TOWN AND TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515 110 25 . SMT. RAMAKKA D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA W/O ASWATHNARAYANA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT, NO. 44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE KURUBARAHALLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 26 . SMT. RANI D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA W/O RAMACHANDRA C/O ASWATHNARAYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT, NO. 44, OPP-JALAPPA COLLEGE KURUBARAHALLI - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 27 . SRI. ADINARAYANA S/O LATE RAMANJINEYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 28 . SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O ADINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 29 . SMT. PADMA D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 27 TO 29 ARE R/AT BEHIND THRIVENI SCHOOL PENUGONDA TOWN AND TALUK ANANTHPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH 515 110 30 . SMT. ANURADHA D/O LATE RAMANJINEYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO. M-7, POLICE QUARTOS OLD BUILDING, AUDUGODI BENGALURU-560 030 31 . SMT. GANGADEVI W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 32 . SMT. ARUNA D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 33 . SMT. ANITHA D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 34 . SRI. MARUTHI S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 35 . SRI. BALAJI D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.31 TO 35 ALL RESIDING AT ANANTHPURAM COURT ROAD ANANTHPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT ANANTHPURA-515 001 36 . SMT. JYOTHI W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 37 . SRI. RAJU S/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 38 . SMT. SWEETY D/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 39 . SMT. HAPPY W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 40 . SMT. LOVELY W/O LATE NANJIVULU @ NANJINAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 36 TO 40 ARE RESIDENT OF 4-A, FORTUNE GREEN APARTMENT, 5TH LANE KRISHNANAGARA GUNTOOR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 41 . SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-1 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) OFFICER AT 39, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING SHANTHI GRUHA, 4TH FLOOR PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 42 . SMT. GAYATHRI K W/O KITTA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING IN BINTRAVALLI REVENUE QUARTERS BALAGADI VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 126 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. YASHAS K, ADVOCATE FOR R42; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025, NOTICE TO R1 TO R40 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1 (r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.X IN O.S NO.460/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NELAMANGALA, ALLOWING THE IA NO.X FILED UNDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC. THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These two appeals arise out of a single order dated 28th January 2025 passed by the Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala in OS No.460/2022. The said order was rendered in connection with interlocutory application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of defendant No.42 seeking vacation of a prior injunction order dated 29.6.2024. The trial Court upon due consideration, allowed the said application thereby, vacating the earlier interim order which has restrained the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (`KIADB' for short) from releasing compensation pursuant to the acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.44 of Mavinakunte Village, Nelamangala Tq. while simultaneously directing defendant No.42 to furnish a bank guarantee for the compensation amount as a condition for receiving the same. 2. Aggrieved by the vacation of the injunction, the plaintiffs have preferred MFA 969/25. Conversely, - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 defendant No.42 has filed MFA No.3171/2025, impugning the imposition of the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee. 3. The factual substratum out of which, these proceedings arise, may now be delineated as under: The suit property in question is a land bearing Sy.No.44, situated at Mavinakunte Village in Nelamangala Tq. measuring approximately 9 acres 4 guntas which comprises 8.28 acres of cultivable land and 16 guntas of Kharab land. It is not in dispute that, the said property was acquired originally by one P.Ramanna S/o.Sanjeevappa, under a registered sale deed back to the year 1951. The said Ramanna is reported to have died intestate and was survived by seven children. The present plaintiffs and defendant no's.1 to 40 in the suit are the natural heirs and descendants of Ramanna. 4. The plaintiff's suit being one for partition and declaration is founded on the assertion that, the suit - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 schedule property constitutes joint family property that has remained undivided. They contend that, by virtue of their status as co-parceners, they are each entitled to a one seventh (1/7th) share in the suit schedule property. Their grievance arises out of certain transactions which allegedly alienate the joint property without their consent. Specifically, they challenge a sale transaction effected in favour of defendant No.42 Smt.Gayathri K., on 11th September 2023. The plaintiffs dispute the legality and validity of the sale deed on multiple grounds including that, the property was purchased pendent elite during the subsistence partition suit and that the title of the vendor itself is under a cloud owing to a contested Will. 5. On the other hand, particularly defendant nos. 18 to 20 have taken up a contention that, the property was not available for partition as it was subject matter of testamentary disposition. According to them, late P.Ramanna had executed a Will dated 26th May 1982 under which the property was bequeathed to their mother - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 Smt.Savitramma. Based on this will they had secured a probate in P & SC No.3/2023. They contend that, the sale in favour of defendant no.42 was made after the grant of probate is accordingly valid and lawful. The purchaser, defendant no.42, has based her claim on this probate and the consequent sale deed, asserting that she is a bona fide purchaser for value. 6. Having heard the arguments of both the side and on perusal of material placed on record, it shows that, there was acquisition of the said property by KIADB commenced under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short `2013 Act') and compensation proceedings were initiated. Plaintiffs moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to injunct KIADB from disbursing compensation to defendant No.42. They contended that their rights as co-owners in an undivided property were being usurped and that irreparable injury would be - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 caused if compensation were paid to a person whose title was in dispute. The records reveal that, the trial Court had initially granted said injunction, however, defendant No..42 moved to vacate the same by filing I.A.10 under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. The appellant-defendant No.42 contended that, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to restrain the process of acquisition or disbursement under the 2013 Act and that the injunction granted against KIADB was statutorily barred. She further pleaded that, she had acquired the property legally based on a probate of the Will so stated supra, and as such, her right to receive compensation could not be restrained. 7. The learned trial Court while accepting the contention regarding jurisdiction, observed that the Civil Court cannot entertain any challenge or pass any order interfere in proceedings arising out of land acquisition or in disbursement of compensation by the Competent Authority under the 2013 Act. However, the trial Court, in an effort to preserve equities and balance, the interest of - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 both the parties, directed that, defendant No.42 could receive the compensation subject to furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire compensation amount. 8. In MFA No.969/2025, the plaintiffs have challenged the legality of the order vacating the injunction and assert that, the trial Court failed to appreciate the nature of plaintiff's interest in the property. They argued that, the sale deed in favour of defendant No.42 is tainted by the doctrine of lis pendens as it was executed during the pendency of the present suit. According to them, the Will itself is suspicious as it purports to have been executed in the year 1992 by P.Ramanna who, they allegedly had died much earlier, in the year 1954. They further argue that, the probate was obtained without due process and that they were not made parties to the probate proceedings, and hence and the same is liable to ignored for the purposes of deciding interim relief. They also argue that, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to protect the rights of coparceners in - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 undivided party restraining payment of compensation to a third party purchaser is permissible as an interim safe guard. 9. In MFA No.3171/2025, Defendant No.42 has challenged the condition imposed upon her to furnish a bank guarantee. The learned Sr.Counsel appearing for Defendant No.42 specifically contend that, once the court accepts bar on jurisdiction to restrain KIADB, the logical corollary would be that, the court cannot impose any conditions upon her entitlement to receive the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant maintains that, the title of Defendant No.42 is clear based on the Will which has already been probated and the suit filed by the plaintiff is speculative and motivated attempt to defeat the rights of appellant/Defendant No.42. 10. Having considered the respective contentions, now I proceed to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 11. The central question to be addressed in the present appeals is two fold: firstly: whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to injunct KIADB from disbursing compensation under 2013 Act and secondly: whether the condition imposed upon defendant No.42 to furnish a bank guarantee is sustainable in law and equity. 12. As regards the first issue, this Court is of the clear view that, Section 63 of the 2013 Act unequivocally bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters pertaining to land acquisition. The bar is expressed in absolute terms and encompasses within its scope not only the determination of compensation but also any matter arising out of the acquisition proceedings. The intent of the legislature is manifest in providing an exclusive administrative judicial machinery for determination of compensation and redressal of grievances arising there from. When the law expressly ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court, any injunction granted by such court in - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 contravention thereof, would be ultravires and liable to be vacated as has been done by the trial Court. 13. The trial Court rightly observed that, it had no jurisdiction to restrain KIADB from disbursing compensation and that such relief could only be sought before the appropriate constitutional Courts or through mechanisms provided within the act itself. However, while the jurisdiction of the civil court to restrain KIADB is barred, the Courts retain jurisdiction over disputes inter se between private parties such as claims for partition declaration of title, shares in partition. 14. In the present case, the plaintiffs have asserted a coparcenery interest in the property. Their claim may or not eventually succeed but it is not frivolous or devoid of legal foundation. The probate granted in favour of the defendants may stand, but, plaintiffs have already initiated separate proceedings to contest its validity. Moreover, even if the probate remains in force, its validity is only presumptive and not conclusive in all respects. It - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 may lend support to Defendant No.42 but, whether the Will is genuine or not, whether the sale was legally permissible and whether the plaintiffs have subsisting right in the compensation amount, are questions that require trial. 15. As to the doctrine of lis pendens the sale in favour of defendant No.42 being subsequent to the institution of the suit, is certainly hit by its operation. The doctrine, as embodied under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, does not render a transaction void but, makes it subject to the outcome of the pending litigation. The purchaser pendente lite takes the property with notice of the suit and is bound by the eventual decree. Thus, defendant No.42 cannot claim any immunity from the consequences of pending litigation merely on the basis of the sale deed or probate. Her rights are subject to adjudication in the main suit. 16. On perusal of the impugned order, the learned trial Court while vacating the injunction sought to - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 preserve the status quo by directing that, the compensation amount be secured by way of a bank guarantee. This direction is neither contrary to the scheme of 2013 Act nor beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. While the Court could not restrain the KIADB, it could certainly regulate the rights of the parties before it by passing conditional orders that preserve the subject matter of the suit. By requiring defendant No.42 to furnish a bank guarantee, the trial Court ensured that, if the plaintiffs succeed, they are not left without a remedy. The condition does not affect the title of defendant No.42 or restrain her from receiving the compensation, but only secures the interest of the plaintiffs in a manner that does not contravene any statutory prohibition. 17. Having regard to the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that, both the appeals are devoid of merit. The trial Court has acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and has exercised its discretion judiciously. It has correctly interpreted the scope of the bar under - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 Section 63 of 2013 Act and has appropriately balanced the competing interests of the parties. The impugned order thus, does not call for any interference as the learned trial Court has adopted a balanced approach in granting conditional relief to the appellant rather than vacating the injunction unconditionally or maintaining the same in its entirety. Such an order protects the status quo and ensures that, pending final adjudication of title, no irretrievable damage is caused to the either side. Conditional nature of the order does not amount to granting main relief in the suit but, is aimed at preserving the subject matter of the dispute. The plaintiffs claim to be a co-sharer whereas appellants claim is from alleged Will. 18. This Court is unable to find any manifest illegality or perversity in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. The order is a discretionary one passed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. Appellate interference in such matters is warranted only when the discretion is - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30648 MFA No. 3171 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 969 of 2025 exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely. That is not the case here. The appellants’ rights are preserved, and she is not denied compensation absolutely. She is merely required to secure the amount by furnishing a bank guarantee to safe guard the interests of the plaintiffs in case they ultimately succeed. 19. In conclusion, I find no merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal Nos.969/2025 and 3171/2025 are dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala in O.S.No. 460/2022 is upheld. Costs made easy. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3