- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15267 RSA No. 246 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O. LATE VENKATARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.60/4 NEAR KAREKAL ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE BANGALORE-MYSORE MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 026. SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 1(A). SRI V RANGASWAMY S/O. LATE VENKATARANGAIAH & LATE KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 1(B). SRI V KALAVATHI W/O. LATE VENKATACHALAIAH & D/O. LATE VENKATARANGAIAH & LATE KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 1(C). SRI V KRISHNA S/O. LATE VENKATARANGAIAH & LATE KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT KUMBALAGODU KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15267 RSA No. 246 of 2010 …. APPELLANTS (BY SRI D R RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE APPELLANT A1(A TO C) AND: SRI JANARDHANAIAH (DEAD) SINCE HIS LRS RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 1. SRI SADANANDA S/O LATE JANARDHANAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT KUMBALGODU VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 060 2. SRI NARASIMHA S/O LATE JANARDHANAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KUMBALGODU VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 060 3. SMT.KAMALAMMA W/O LATE G.NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.207, 4TH MAIN ROAD 10TH CROSS, SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H P LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; (R1 IS THE GPA HOLDE R OF R2 AS MENTIONED IN VK) (V/O DT/17.08.2011 APPEAL IS DISMISSED AGAINST R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15267 RSA No. 246 of 2010 DATED 3.10.2009 PASSED IN R.A.No.45/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2002 PASSED IN O.S.NO.620/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL II CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri D.R. Rajashekarappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Appeal came to be admitted by Order dated 22.03.2021 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Courts below erred in law in decreeing suit for perpetual injunction in respect of a vacant plot after holding that the plaintiff did not derive any title to it? 2. Whether the Courts below committed an error in not considering that the suit filed in the year 1995 to declare a sale deed dated 22.10.1969 as nominal was barred by limitation moreso when - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15267 RSA No. 246 of 2010 the executor of the sale deed was alive till the year 1993?” 3. At the outset, Sri D.R. Rajashekharappa, learned counsel for the appellant would place on record the order dated 22.03.2021, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.245/2010 connected with RSA No.244/2010 and RSA No.263/2010. 4. He would further submit that a suit was filed by the respondent - Janardanaiah was partly decreed and confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 5. Sri D.R. Rajashekharappa, learned counsel for the appellant would fairly submit that since the title in respect of the property which was subject matter of aforementioned second appeals, which was subject matter of O.S.No.409/1993 and O.S.No.491/1994, it has been concluded that the appellant has no right whatsoever as the suit for specific performance and injunction came to be dismissed concluded in the second appeal. 6. As such, the injunction decree against the appellant herein which are subject matter of O.S.No.620/1995 would not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15267 RSA No. 246 of 2010 have any bearing as his rights are concluded in the aforesaid second appeal. 7. Placing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and also in the light of the judgments passed in the aforesaid second appeal, dated 22.03.2021 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, necessarily, the substantial questions of law are to be answered against the appellant and accordingly, they are answered. 8. Consequently, the following: ORDER Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75