- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050432018 NC: 2026:KHC:42932 RSA No. 796 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.796 OF 2018 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI GURUMURTHY S/O. SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. SRI. ERAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SRI. LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY S/O. SRI. RANGAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 3(a) SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 3(b) SMT.ASHWATHAMMA D/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY WIFE OF SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 3(c) SMT.V.SUJATHA D/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY W/O SRI VENKATACHALAM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3(d) SRI K.L.SHANKAR S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050432018 NC: 2026:KHC:42932 RSA No. 796 of 2018 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3(e) SMT.RATNAMMA W/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 3(f) SRI ASHWATHANARAYAN LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3(g) SMT.JYOTHI NAGARAM NAGAVENI D/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH SHETTY W/O SRI MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKA KORATI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 122. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI BALAKRISHNA A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI UTTANALLAPPA S/O. BUDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1(A) SRI U.VENKATESH SON OF LATE UTTANALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 1(B) SRI U.GOVINDAPPA SON OF LATE UTTANALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050432018 NC: 2026:KHC:42932 RSA No. 796 of 2018 1(C) SMT.U.MANJAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE UTTANALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 1(D) SMT.U.SAROJAMMA D/O LATE UTTANALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 1(E) SRI U.SRINIVAS S/O LATE UTTANALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKAKORATI VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 122. 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SRI. NANJAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, 3(A) THAYAMMA, W/O LATE NANJAPPA. AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 4. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE NANJAPPA. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 5. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKA KORATI VILLAGE, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050432018 NC: 2026:KHC:42932 RSA No. 796 of 2018 NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VASUNDARA.T.P FOR SRI P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATES FOR R1(A TO E); R2 TO R5 SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DECREE DATED 23.01.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.11/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.80/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC., HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Amended Appeal memo filed. Heard Sri A. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.T.P.Vasundara, learned counsel for Sri P.M.Siddamallappa, learned counsel for the legal reprsentatives of respondent No.1. 2. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 are the appellants challenging the decree of injunction passed in O.S No.80/2010 dated 22.09.2012 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050432018 NC: 2026:KHC:42932 RSA No. 796 of 2018 confirmed in R.A No.11/2013 dated 23.01.2018 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 3. It is submitted by Sri Balakrishna, learned counsel for the appellants that a comprehensive suit with a prayer of declaration is filed by the appellants and the finding recorded by the both the Courts would come in the way of adjudication of the said suit, on merits. 4. Such an apprehension can be quelled by observing that if the appellants succeed in the comprehensive suit, needless to emphasize that such a decree will be operative and the injunction decree passed in O.S No.80/2010 confirmed in R.A No.11/2013 could be subservient to such a decree. 5. With that observation, the following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46