- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19140 RSA No. 369 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.369 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. POMYA NAIKA S/O DHARMA NAIKA AGED 59 YEARS 2. SHRI SHANKARA NAIKA S/O LALYA NAIKA AGED 60 YEARS 3. SHRI CHANDRA NAIKA S/O JAYANAIKA AGED 57 YEARS ALL ARE R/O SEVALAL NAGARA SASUVEHALLI HOBLI THIMMALAPURA THANDA, HONNALLI (TQ) DAVANGERE DISTRICT- 577 217 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI NATARAJ DONKENNAVAR FOR SRI ABHINAY P. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI LINGYA NAIKA S/O TAKRE NAIKA AGED 57 YEARS 2. SRI HEERYA NAIKA @ ERANAIKA S/O TAKRE NAIKA AGED 55 YEARS Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19140 RSA No. 369 of 2010 BOTH ARE R/O SEVALAL NAGARA SASUVEHALLI HOBLI THIMMALAPURA THANDA, HONNALI TQ, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 217 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GAJENDRA SHANKAR SHALKE FOR SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATES FOR R1 AND R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2009 PASSED IN R.A.68/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2008 PASSED IN O.S.22/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.), HARIHAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Even though the appellant was not a party to an earlier compromise decree in respect of the very same suit property which attained finality, whether the present suit was maintainable by the appellant? (ii) Whether the law contemplates oral sale though Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, would indicate that sale of immovable property, which is valued less than Rs.100/- does not require registration? - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19140 RSA No. 369 of 2010 2. Instead of addressing the arguments on the above substantial questions of law, learned counsel for the appellants has filed the memo, which reads as under: “The appellant/plaintiff have filed the captioned appeal challenging the judgement and decree dated 22/10/2009 passed in the court of 1st Additional and Sessions Judge Davangere in in R.A No.68/2008 confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 02/02/2005 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Harihar in O.S.No.22/2005. The appellant/plaintiff have filed suit for following relief a) To declare the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. b) To restrain the defendants and their agents' servants, employees, relatives or who ever they may be from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by way of granting the permanent injunction. c) Such other reliefs, as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. The respondent/ Defendants filed the written statement claiming title over the suit schedule property based on M.R. No.71/1974 & M.R.No.8/93-94 made in favour of Defendant No.1. It is further contended that defendant No.2 instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.118/1994 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19140 RSA No. 369 of 2010 against defendant No.1 and the said suit ended in a compromise. It is submitted that the appellant/plaintiffs are not party to the said compromise decree. This Hon'ble court on 16/09/2010 was pleased admit the appeal by framing the following the substantial questions of Law. 1. Even though the appellant was not a party to an earlier compromise decree in respect of the very same suit property which attained the finality, whether the present suit was maintainable by the appellant? 2. Whether the law contemplates oral sale through section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act-1882 would indicate that the sale of immovable property which is valued less then Rs.100/- does not require registration ? The respondents/defendants are the strangers to the appellants/plaintiffs family. Hence this memo is filed seeking permission of this Hon'ble court to permit the appellants/plaintiffs to challenge the compromise decree dated 13/4/1994 passed in O.S.No.118/1994 passed by the court of Munsiff at Honnali. Wherefore this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to reserve liberty for the appellant/plaintiffs to challenge the judgement and decree (compromised Decree) dated 13/04/1994 in O.S.No.118/1994 passed by the learned Munsiff Honnali (Ex.P13], in the interest of justice and equity.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19140 RSA No. 369 of 2010 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has endorsed ‘no objection’ on the memo. 4. Thus, by consent of the parties, without answering the substantial questions of law, placing the memo on record, appeal stands disposed of with liberty as prayed for. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 77