NAGARATHNAMURTHY vs SRI S NARAYANAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM
SRIVATSA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24018 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
NAGARATHNAMURTHY
W/O.A.N. RAMESH MURTHY
D/O.LATE. D.S. HANUMANTHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RD
R/AT.NO.29, 3 CROSS
JUDICIAL OFFICERS LAYOUT
ND
RMV 2 STAGE
BANGALORE -560 094
REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI. MADAPPA
S/O. MUNISHAMI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT.SHETTERAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
VISHWANATHAPURA POST
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. BANNUR., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by PADMASHREE
SHEKHAR DESAI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
SRI. S. NARAYANAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. SRI. SANTOSH
S/O.LATE. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
2. MISS KUMARI CHANDAN
D/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
BOTH R/AT. SHIVAKOTE
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-562 149.
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O.LATE. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
C/O. SUBBANNA R/AT. SHIVAKOTE
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE -562 149.
4. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O.LATE. SIDDARAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT. SHETTERAHALLI
VISHWANATHAPURA POST
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110
5. SMT. T. RABITHA
W/O. A.D.R. PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT.NO.165, PARKSTONE WAY
MARIETTA, GA 30066
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
6. SRI.G. SRINIVASA RAO
S/O.SUBBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 51YEARS
R/AT NO.6475, RED OAK DRIVE
CORONA CA-92880
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6 ARE
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A HOLDER
SRI. T.P.S. SATHYANARAYANA
S/O. RAGHAVAIAJ
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO.306, SAI GOLDEN NEST APARTMENT
MALLESHPALYA EXTENSION
VIGNAN NAGAR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 075.
7. SRI. A.MURALIKRISHNA
S/O. A.B.L PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.301 SAI GOLDEN NEST APARTMENT
MALLESHPALYA EXTENSION
VIGNAN NAGAR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 075.
8. SRI. T.P.S. SATHYANARAYANA
S/O. RAGHAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.306,
SAI GOLDEN NEST APARTMENT
MALLESHPALYA EXTENSION
VIGNAN NAGAR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 075.
9. SMT. ANJINAMMA
W/O.LATE.LAKSHMAIAH
D/O. LATE.SIDDARAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
10. SMT. CHIKKAMMA
W/O. DODDABEERAPPA
D/O. LATE. SIDDARAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.9 AND 10
RESIDING AT SHETTERAHALLI VILLAGE
VISHWANATHAPURA POST KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
11. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O. BEERAPPA
D/O. LATE.SIDDARAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT. S.M.GOLLAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
DODDABALLPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
12. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. PATALAPPA
D/O. LATE.SIDDARAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT. KASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
VEERAPURA POST KASABA HOBLI
DODDABALLPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
13. SMT. LINGAMMA
W/O. NARAYANAPPA
D/O. LATE. SIDDARAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT. HARALUMALLIGE VILLAGE
AND POST, MADURE HOBLI
DODDABALLPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 209.
14. SMT.SHASHIKALA
W/O.NAGARAJU
D/O. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT.SULIBELE
KURUBARAPETE, SULIBELE POST
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 129.
15. SRI. K. RAVIKUMAR
S/O.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
16. SMT. ANITHA
W/O.K.RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
17. SRI.K. SHANKARA
S/O.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
18. SMT. MAMATHA
W/O. K. SHANKARA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.15 TO 18 ARE
RESIDING AT
SHETTERAHALLI VILLAGE
VISHWANATHAPURA POST
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
19. SMT. REKHA
W/O. MURALI, D/O. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT. DEVANAHALLI TOWN
SAROVARA BEEDI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
20. SRI. A.V.KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O. VENKATACHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT. KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE
KANNAMANGALA POST
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 115.
21. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O. LATE.MUNIVENKATAPPA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT. B V NILAYA, SR LAYOUT
PRASHANTHNAGAR, WARD NO.22
TH
4 DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
22. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
CUM-COMPETENT AUTHORITY
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
KUNIGAL, NOW, NH- 648 (OLD NO.207)
(HOSAKOTE-DABASPET DIVISION)
SITE OFFICE DABASPET
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.S. UDAY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R20)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
COMMON ORDER DTD 23.07.2025 VIDE ANNX-T PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI
AND THEREBY REJECTED THE IA NO. 31 FILED UNDER
SECTION 151 IN O.S NO. 734/2007 OF THE CPC VIDE ANX-N
AND IA NO .33 FILED UNDER ORDER 11 RULE 14 R/W S 151
OF CPC VIDE ANX-Q AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM
SRIVATSA
ORAL ORDER
The prayer in the petition reads as follows:
(i) Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
Certiorari quashing the impugned common
order dated 23.07.2025, vide Annexure-T
passed by the 0.734/07 Principal Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli and
thereby rejected the IA No.31 filed under
Section 151 in O.S.No.734/07 of the Civil
IN OS. Procedure Code, vide Annexure-N
and IA No.33 filed under Order 11 Rule 14
read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure
Code, vide Annexure-Q.
(ii) And issue any other writ or order as
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice and
equity.”
2. Although, the prayer, as quoted above, seeks to
challenge the three orders produced as Annexure-T, Annexure-
N and Annexure-Q, Sri. Basavaraj R. Bannur, learned counsel
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
for the petitioner, fairly stated that the petitioner is aggrieved
only by the orders of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Devanahalli, on IA No. 31 and IA No. 33 in O.S. No. 734 of
2007.
3. Petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and
consequential reliefs in O.S. No.734 of 2007 pending on the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. The plaintiff
has sought the following reliefs:
“ Wherefore, the plaintiff most humbly
prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to
pass a judgment and decree in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants
and
(a) Declare that the plaintiff is the sole and
absolute owner in possession having all the
right, title and interest over the suit
schedule land:
(b) Cancel the Sale deeds (1) dated
18.08.2004 vide document No. DNH-1-
01517-2004-05 of Book No.1, stored in
C.D.No.DNHD-18 dated 18.08.2004 (2)
Sale deed dated 18.08.2004 vide
document No. DNH-1-01538-2004-05 of
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
Book No.1, stored in C.D.No.DNHD-19
dated 18.08.2004 and (3) the Sale deed
dated 18.08.2004 vide document No.DNH-
1-01713-2004-05 of Book No.1, stored in
C.D.No.DNHD-20 dated 18.08.2004 in
respect of the suit schedule:
(c) Grant an order of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants, their
henchmen, servants, agents or anybody
acting on their behalf from interfering with
the peaceful possession, occupation,
cultivation and enjoyment of the suit
schedule land by the plaintiff;
(d) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble
Court deems just and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.”
4. Defendant No.19 in the suit was impleaded recently
and he is said to be the contesting respondent in this writ
petition. The said defendant No.19 arrayed as respondent
No.20 in the writ petition is today represented by Shri K. S.
Uday, learned counsel on caveat.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
5. I have heard Shri Basavaraj R. Bannoor, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. S. Uday, learned counsel
for the caveator at some length. I have also gone through the
records carefully.
6. The grievance of the petitioner with respect to IA
No.31 filed under Section 151 of CPC is that the Civil Court
refused to direct Defendant No.19 to deposit the compensation
amount he has received from the National Highways Authority
of India (NHAI). It is pertinent to note, at this stage, that
Defendant No.19 claims to have purchased an extent of 3 acres
and 22 guntas, which is a part of the plaint schedule properties.
Out of the 3 acres and 22 guntas of land purchased by
Defendant No. 19, an extent of 392 square meters has been
acquired by the NHAI. Since defendant No.19 was the
purchaser of that land, he is stated to have received
compensation in respect of that acquisition. The petitioner-
Plaintiff, therefore, sought a direction to defendant No.19 that
the said amount along with interest may be deposited to the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
credit of the pending suit. By the order at Annexure-E on IA
No.31, the Civil Court has refused to grant any such direction.
7. On a careful perusal of the frame of the suit, it
appears that the sale in favour of defendant No.19 has not
been specifically assailed in the course of the plaint. Neither the
body of the plaint nor the prayers in the suit contain any
challenge to the sale deed in favour of defendant No.19.
However, defendant No.19 was added recently by way of
impleadment. In this view of the matter, when the sale in
favour of defendant No.19 is not specifically challenged in the
plaint, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to seek a direction
for him to deposit the compensation amount to the credit of the
suit. There is no error committed by the Civil Court as far as its
order on IA No.31 is concerned. The writ petition to that extent
deserves to be rejected.
8. Turning our attention to the order of the Civil Court on
IA No.33, the grievance of the petitioner is that the application
was made under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC. The petitioner-
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
Plaintiff wanted a direction to defendant No.16 to produce
certain documents like the orders passed by the Inams
Abolition Authorities, etc. That application has been rejected.
Here again, the Civil Court has noticed that there are no
necessary pleadings in this regard and accordingly, IA No.33
was rejected.
9. In respect of IA No.33 also, as has rightly been
observed by the Civil Court, in the absence of the necessary
readings by the plaintiff, an order under 11 Rule 14 of CPC for
the defendant to produce documents is not permissible.
Moreover, this is a suit for declaration of title. The plaintiff has
to succeed on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of the defendant's case. If the defendant does not
produce any document in support of his plea, necessary
consequences in law would naturally follow. Therefore, there
was no occasion or warrant to pass any order against the
defendants on IA No.33.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59138
WP No. 24018 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010513572025
10. In the light of the foregoing discussion, there is no
occasion or warrant to entertain this writ petition any further.
Resultantly, the following order is passed:
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM
SRIVATSA)
JUDGE
CS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26