- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2338 RSA No. 200367 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200367 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ANNEPPA S/O LATE VEERSHETTY PHULARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRSI (A) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR – 585 226. 2. SRI SHANKAR S/O LATE VEERAPPA ALADI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRSI (A) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR – 585 226. 3. SRI VAIJINATH S/O LATE SHARNAPPA CHANGALERI DECEASED BY LRS. NAGAMMA W/O LATE VAIJINATH AGE: NIL, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SIRSI (A) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR – 585 226. 4. SRI AFZAL S/O ALLAWALLI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRSI (A) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR – 585 226. AS PER COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 08.01.2025 FOLLOWING LRS BROUGHT ON RECORD Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2338 RSA No. 200367 of 2022 5. SRI MOUSAMIYAN S/O ALLAWALLI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRSI (A) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR – 585 226. 6. SRI ISAMIYAN S/O ALLAWALLI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRSI (A) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR – 585 226. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI BHEEMARAYA M.N., ADVOCATE FOR A1, A2, A3(A) & A6) AND: 1. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O JAGANATH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JANWADA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR – 585 226. 2. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE SHAMRAO AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRSI (A) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR – 585 226. 3. SRI. AHAMED MIYAN S/O ALLAWALLI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRSI (A) VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR – 585 226. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.M.GHATE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2; R3 IS SERVED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.09.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2019 ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BIDAR, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.129/2013 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.-II, BIDAR AND TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2338 RSA No. 200367 of 2022 DEEM NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This appeal is arising from a concurrent finding in a suit for perpetual injunction. The suit of the plaintiff No.2 is dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff No.1 is partly decreed. The appeal filed by the defendants is dismissed. 2. The suit property is the property bearing Sy.No.175, measuring 07 acres 22 guntas situated at village Sirsi-A, Tq. Bidar. The defendants who are the appellants before this Court claim to have purchased small portions of sites in all measuring about 10 guntas in the aforementioned survey number from one Basawaraj S/o Adveppa under different unregistered sale deeds. Admittedly, all the sale deeds are executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2338 RSA No. 200367 of 2022 3. The trial Court has impounded the documents at Exs.D3 to D5, D8 and D11 (unregistered sale deeds) on the premise that the documents are not sufficiently stamped. It is stated that further actions are not initiated in terms of the decree dated 25.02.2019 which directed impounding of aforementioned documents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the property originally belonged to Adeppa, Tejappa and Shyamanna and Basavaraj. The appellants’ vendor - Basavaraj inherited the portion of the suit property from his father Adeppa and the appellants are in lawful possession of the property under the aforementioned unregistered agreements for sale. 5. It is urged that the possession of the plaintiffs is not established and possession of the appellants is established in respect of about 10 guntas of land in the suit property and the suit could not have been decreed in respect of entire 07 acres 22 guntas. Thus, it is urged - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2338 RSA No. 200367 of 2022 that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court and the first appellate Court are required to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents would submit that the plaintiff No.2 – Nagamma had filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.50/2011 along with her daughter Shashikala and said suit was decreed in favour of Shashikala and later in RFA No.200096/2018, Nagamma was also allotted share in the property bearing Sy.No.175 measuring 07 acres 22 guntas. It is urged that the plaintiffs have filed final decree proceedings in FDP No.21/2018 and because of pendency of this appeal, the final decree proceedings is not taken to its logical end. 7. It is further submitted that 02 acres 08 guntas are earmarked for allotment in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and noticing the fact that the present appellants are in un-authorized occupation of some portion (approximately 10 guntas) the plaintiffs/petitioners in final decree proceedings have filed an application to implead the present appellants as parties - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2338 RSA No. 200367 of 2022 to the final decree proceedings and it is his submission that in respect of un-authorized occupation of portion of the land by the appellants, the respondents before this Court will take appropriate legal recourse to take possession in pending final decree proceeding. 8. It is also urged that the appellants have no right, title and interest over the suit property as they claim to have purchased the property from the person who had only undivided share in the property and no title is transferred in favour of the appellants as the sale deeds are insufficiently stamped and unregistered. Thus, he would urge to dismiss the appeal. 9. This Court has considered the contentions and perused the records. 10. It is indeed true that the appellants have entered into an agreements of sale in the year 2010 from one Basavaraj and in view of the decree passed in RFA No.200096/2018, Basavaraj is not the absolute owner of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2338 RSA No. 200367 of 2022 entire 07 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.175. He is having 1/3rd share in the said Sy.No.175. At the same time, it is also required to be noticed that there is no registered sale deed also in favour of the appellants and it is also submitted at the Bar that appellants are made parties in the aforementioned final decree proceedings. 11. In that event, in case the area in possession of the appellants is allotted to the share of the present respondents, the final decree Court shall take necessary steps to evict the appellants through the process of law. 12. In case the appellants have got any remedy against their vendor, appellants are at liberty to proceed against the vendor for redressal of their grievance as advised in law. 13. The respondents are entitled to relief of injunction in respect of the properties that will be allotted to their share in the final decree proceeding. In case the appellants are found to be in possession of the property - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2338 RSA No. 200367 of 2022 allotted to the share of respondents, the respondents are entitled to execute the decree against the appellants to take possession of the properties. 14. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law would arise and the appeals are disposed of taking into consideration subsequent development where the appellants are made parties in the pending final decree proceedings, the impugned judgments and decrees of the First Appellant Court and the Trial Court are modified to the aforesaid extent. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.02.2019 in O.S.No.129/2013 on the file II Additional Civil Judge, Bidar and the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2021 in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2338 RSA No. 200367 of 2022 R.A.No.14/2019 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bidar are modified to the extent indicated below. iii) In case the appellants are found to be in possession of any of the portion of the property allotted to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is entitled to execute the final decree to seek possession from appellants. iv) In case the appellants have any grievance against their vendor, the appellants are at liberty to take steps against their vendors as advised in law. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36