- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29383 RSA No. 1164 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. G.M. NAGARAJU, S/O MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O H. GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, HOSAKERE MAJARA, MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. C.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAMPAKKA W/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 2. SMT. MALLAKKA D/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT KATAGANAHATTI KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29383 RSA No. 1164 of 2022 3. SMT. ERAMMA D/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. SMT. SANNAMMA D/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 5. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 6. SMT. MALLAKKA D/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 7. SMT. CHIKKEERAMMA D/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YERS R/AT MALLEKAVU GOLLARAHATTI, C.N. DURGA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK - 572 129. 8. SRI. NAGABUSHANA S/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 9. SMT. MANGALAMMA D/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 10. SRI. SAKRAPPA S/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29383 RSA No. 1164 of 2022 RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3 TO 6 AND 8 TO 10 ARE R/AT H. GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE HOSAKERE MAJARA, MEDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. 11. SMT. DODDAKKA W/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT H. GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, HOSAKERE MAJARA, MEDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEK B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10; R11 - DODDAKKA, SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.12.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.5034/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI. REJECTING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2021 PASSED ON IA IN EX.NO.125/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MADHUGIRI., DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 99 OF CPC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29383 RSA No. 1164 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.C.V.Manjunatha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Vivek B.R., learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 10. 2. Present second appeal is filed by the objector who filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 in the execution petition No.125/2010 which has been filed to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.36/2005. 3. Appellant being the applicant, claimed independent title over the suit property based on a Will said to have been executed by the owner of the property. 4. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments of the parties in detail, dismissed the objectors application. Validity of the said order was called in question by the objector by filing an appeal in RA No.5034/2021. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29383 RSA No. 1164 of 2022 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after hearing the parties in detail, dismissed the appeal filed by the objector. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that appellant being the handicapped person, had been bequeathed with the suit property by the erstwhile owner and in respect of the same, a suit for declaration was filed in O.S.No.303/2010. 7. Challenging the validity of both the orders, present second appeal is filed to consider the following substantial questions of law and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration: i) Whether the Trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court erred in not appreciating the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence in proper perspective and also in giving due weightage? ii) Whether the Trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court erred in not noticing and appreciating the fact of DHR Eranna is JDR- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29383 RSA No. 1164 of 2022 Doddakka's husband's uncle from same ancestor well aware of the nature of the property devolved upon Badanna and Eranna with equal share and there is no partition amongst them, revenue entries continued in the name of Eranna, despite which ventured upon to enter into sale agreement with the Doddakka-JDR who is illiterate and Widow having no issues to grab the property which virtually amounts to fraud? ii) Whether the Trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court erred in giving weightage to the statements of the DHR an outsider regarding Will and of so called partition, when the concerned persons JDR Doddakka being wife of late. Eranna admitted the Will, in the comprehensive suit in O.S. No. 303/2010, so also not disputed the Will in execution proceedings and the DHR being outsider cannot question the validity and genuinity of the Will, however by examining witness to the Will the execution was proved? iv) Whether the Trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court erred in observing each and every act of the obstructer/appellant so also of Mallaiah who also made application obstructer, for protection of their legitimate right and share in the properties, in which absolutely there is nothing wrong, as if same are to defraud DHR ? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29383 RSA No. 1164 of 2022 v) Whether the Trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court erred in not appreciating the fact of Mallaiah raised objection regarding application made by JDR Doddakka for change of Khata relating to all the family property including the property in question in its entirety much earlier to so called sale agreement of DHR, suit in O.S. No. 49/2005 filed by him for partition is earlier to filing of suit for specific performance by DHR in O.S. No. 36/2005, which demonstrates there is no any collusion or so called fraud? viii). Whether the courts below are right in not considering the vital aspect of appeal in RA No. 7/2019 preferred against the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 514/2010 for comprehensive relief of declaration of ownership and declaring sale deed dated 22/6/2011 executed through court process as per order in Execution Case No. 125/2010 is pending adjudication? ix). Whether the Courts below are right in rejecting/dismissing the application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC? x). Whether the Courts below are justified in adopting pick and choose method while considering evidence and proceeded on few Stray admissions? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29383 RSA No. 1164 of 2022 8. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant being a handicapped person, got title to the suit property by way of a Will executed by the erstwhile owner of the suit property and therefore, impugned Orders are perverse in nature and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that suit filed in O.S.No.303/2010 ended in a compromise and therefore, no further rights are to be adjudicated by admitting the appeal. 10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, since the appellant has already exhausted the remedy of filing a suit seeking declaration that he is the owner of the property which ended in compromise, the present appeal cannot be entertained further that too based on the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29383 RSA No. 1164 of 2022 application filed under Order XXI Rule 99 being dismissed by both the Courts with the concurrent finding that the appellant has no independent right to object the duly passed decree in O.S.No.35/2005. 12. Hence, the substantial questions of law do not merit for further consideration. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: BHK