- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28923 RFA No. 99 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2015 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: SMT.CHANDRAMMA, W/O LATE SRI J. BORANNA,, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT SITE NO.129, K.K. LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 072. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJESH MAHALE, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI H DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.PREMALATHA, W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT C/O SRI V S RAIKAR, NO. 19/A, 7TH MAIN ROAD, CHBS LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE, REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI SURESH KUMAR. 2. SRI M.G.NAGESHA ACHARYA, S/O SRI M.GUNDA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 96, 7TH MAIN SHIVNAGARA 2ND BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28923 RFA No. 99 of 2015 WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH T.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY K., ADV. FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2014 PASSED IN O.S.4431/2004 ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 15.10.2014 passed by XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.no.4431/2004, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Manjunath T.R., learned counsel appearing for Sri Narasimha Murthy K., learned counsel submitted that appeal is by defendant no.1 in suit was filed for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 20.11.2003 executed by GPA holder of plaintiff's vendor in favour of defendant no.1 as null and void; declaration of plaintiff as owner of Schedule-A property bearing Gramatana no.2012, Assessment no.22:08, 23:4, 23:8, Khata - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28923 RFA No. 99 of 2015 site no.129, Kaneshumari no.2328:129 along with one square RCC Sheet roofed house situated at Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru ('suit property' for short); and for direction to defendants to hand over possession of suit property to plaintiff, etc. 3. It was submitted, during pendency of suit, defendant no.1 executed Sale Deed dated 11.02.2005 marked as Ex.P16/D2 selling away her interest in Schedule 'A' property in favour of defendant no.2. It was submitted thereafter, there was a settlement between defendant no.2 and present plaintiff recorded in RFA no.111/2015, as per terms of which defendant no.2 divested his entire right, title and interest in suit property in favour of plaintiff. It was submitted that trial Court had appreciated material on record and decreed suit. It was submitted, in view of above facts especially alienation of entire right, title and interest in suit property in form of defendant no.2, defendant no.1 would not be an aggrieved party against impugned decree and sought dismissal of appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28923 RFA No. 99 of 2015 4. Sri Rajesh Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri H.Devendrappa, learned counsel is unable to countenance said submission. 5. On perusal of Ex.P15 - sale deed and compromise petition and decree passed in RFA no.111/2015 and finding them to be in relation to suit property herein, I find substance in submission made by learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff. 6. In view of above, appeal by defendant no.1, who has already alienated his interest in suit property, it cannot be treated as one filed by an aggrieved party. Consequently, appeal is dismissed as not tenable, without admitting it. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52