- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43935 RSA No. 482 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2013 (RES) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 461 OF 2013 IN RSA No. 482/2013 BETWEEN: 1. 1(A) T PARAMESHWARA BHATTA SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS., SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O T. PARAMESHWARA BHATTA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O SRINGERI TOWN. 1(B) T NAGESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE T. PRAMESHWRA BHATTA, R/O SRINGERI TOWN. 1(C) T JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE T.PRAMESHWRA BHATTA, R/O SRINGERI TOWN. 4. T P UMESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43935 RSA No. 482 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013 S/O LATE T.PRAMESHWRA BHATTA, R/O SRINGERI TOWN. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K N SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K R RAJEEVALOCHANA S/O LATE K.V. RAMAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O HENCHINAMANE, MASIGE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINGERI TALUK. 2. SMT K R RAMAMANI W/O K.R. RAJEEVALOCHANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O HENCHINAMANE, MASIGE VILLGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINGERI TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. V. VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.79/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHIKKAMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.6.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) SRINGERI. IN RSA NO. 461/2013 BETWEEN: 1. SRI T P UMESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43935 RSA No. 482 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013 S/O LATE T PARAMESHWARA BHATTA RESIDING AT SRINGERI TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI K R RAJEEVALOCHANA AGED ABOUT 44 EYARS S/O LATE K V RAMAPAIAH RESIDING AT HENCHINAMANE, MASIGE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SRINGERI TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 2. SMT RAMAMANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O SRI K R RAJEEVALOCHANA RESIDING AT HENCHINAMANE MASIGE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SRINGERI TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 3. SMT LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS W/O LATE T PARAMESHWARA BHATTA RESIDING AT SRINGERI TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT (AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 13.09.2022, APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1,2,4,5 ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R3) 4. SRI T NAGESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O LATE T PARAMESHWARA BHATTA RESIDING AT SRINGERI TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43935 RSA No. 482 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013 5. SRI T JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O LATE T PARAMESHWARA BHATTA RESIDING AT SRINGERI TOWN CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. V. VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. K.N. SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5 V/O DATED 13.09.2022 APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1,2,4,5 ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R3) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD 12.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.79/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHIKMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 29.6.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.40/2006 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), SRINGERE. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43935 RSA No. 482 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants filed a memo for withdrawal in both the appeals, which reads as follows: "1. The Appellant herein had preferred the above Second Appeal against the Respondents seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed in R.A. No. 79/2010 on the file of the Court of the Fast Track Judge, Chikkamagaluru, which had confirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2009 in O.S. No. 40/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sringeri, and consequently to allow the suit with costs, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The Plaintiff, Sri T. Prameshwara Bhat, along with his wife and sons, had executed a registered partition deed dated 15.10.1999. Under the said deed, the third son, Sri T. P. Umesh (the present Appellant No. 1(d) and Plaintiff No. 1(d) in the original suit), was allotted a comparatively lesser share. 3. In view of the same, it was mutually agreed between the parties that the following suit schedule properties, measuring 0.12 acres, would be retained as life interest properties in favor of both the parents, and upon their demise, the said properties would devolve absolutely upon Sri T. P. Umesh: ➤ Property bearing Sy. No. 130/1, measuring 5 guntas (Akara Rs. 1.20), situated at Teri, Sringeri Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Sringeri Taluk. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43935 RSA No. 482 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013 ➤ Property bearing Sy. No. 130/2, measuring 7 guntas (Akara Rs. 1.68), situated at Teri, Sringeri Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Sringeri Taluk. The plaintiff's daughter, Smt. K. R. Ramamani (Defendant No. 2), was a witness to the said partition deed. 4. Subsequently, when the plaintiff became aged (around 90 years) and was in a feeble physical and mental condition, the 1st Defendant Sri K. R. Rajeevalochana (son-in-law) and the 2nd Defendant Smt. K. R. Ramamani (daughter), by means of fraud, coercion, and misrepresentation, obtained a registered sale deed dated 29.06.2006 in favor of the 1st Defendant, despite the fact that the plaintiff held only a life interest and the absolute right in the properties was to vest with Sri T. P. Umesh after the demise of both parents. 5. The plaintiff thereafter instituted O.S. No. 40/2006 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sringeri, seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 29.06.2006, along with possession and mesne profits, contending that the said sale deed was void, illegal, and obtained by fraud and coercion. The defendants entered appearance and contended that the suit was not maintainable and that the sale was a valid transaction, denying the allegations of fraud. 6. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sringeri, after hearing both parties, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 29.06.2009. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred R.A. No. 79/2010 before the Fast Track Court, Chikkamagaluru, which, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal on 12.12.2012, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by the concurrent - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43935 RSA No. 482 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013 findings, the present Regular Second Appeal came to be filed before this Hon'ble Court. 8. It is now respectfully submitted that the registered sale deed dated 29.06.2006 in favor of the 1st Defendant was executed solely by Sri T. Prameshwara Bhat, even though the said properties were jointly owned by him and his wife, Smt. Lakshmamma. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Lakshmamma was not a party or vendor to the said sale deed. 9. The Appellant, upon becoming fully aware of these material facts and the attendant legal implications, now intends to initiate appropriate legal proceedings to assert and secure the said vested share of Smt. Lakshmamma by instituting a fresh, independent suit in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Appellant reserves his liberty to take recourse to such independent proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Order XXIII Rule 1 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without prejudice to the rights and contentions available to him in law and on facts. 10. In light of the above developments and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Appellant humbly seeks permission to withdraw the present Regular Second Appeal, with liberty to institute a fresh suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs in accordance with law. PRAYER WHEREFORE, the Appellants most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) Permit the Appellants to withdraw the present appeal so as to enable him to institute properly - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43935 RSA No. 482 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013 constituted and comprehensive suit for seeking appropriate reliefs in respect of the subject matter; and b) Grant liberty to the Appellants to institute a fresh and independent suit in accordance with law, by extending such leave under Order II Rule 2 and Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to seek appropriate reliefs concerning the suit schedule properties, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Memo is taken on record in both the appeals. 3. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the appeals with liberty to institute a partition and separate possession suit regarding the share of the mother of the appellants in the property acquired by her under the partition deed marked as Ex.P2. 4. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the legal representatives of the deceased appellant to institute a fresh and comprehensive suit regarding the property owned and possessed by the wife of the deceased appellant and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43935 RSA No. 482 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 461 of 2013 mother of legal representatives of the deceased appellant as per the partition deed vide Ex.P2. 5. If such a suit is filed by the legal representatives of the appellants, all the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT:KHV