- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1028 RSA No. 100613 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100613 OF 2022 (PAR/INJ-) BETWEEN: 1. DASTGIRSAB BUDDESAB KALLIMANI, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRIL, R/O. HALLIKERI VILLAGE, TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD PIN. 582 208. 2. HAJARESAB BADESAB KALLIMANI, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRIL, R/O. HALLIKERI VILLAGE, TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN. 582 208. 3. HUSSAINPEERA DASTAGIRSAB KALLIMANI, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRIL, R/O. HALLIKERI VILLAGE, TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN. 582 208. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI AND SMT. SUJATA S DHUMMAWAL ADVOCATES) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.24 13:12:07 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1028 RSA No. 100613 of 2022 AND: 1. KHADIRSAB DAVALSAB SHAIKHBAI AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.HALLIKERI VILLAGE, TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN.582208. 2. HUSSANSAB DAVALSAB SHAIKHBAI, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRIL, R/O. HALLIKERI VILLAGE, TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN. 582 208. …RESPONDENTS ------ THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO THE PRESENT APPEAL BE ALLOWED, AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF SENIOR CIVL JUDGE AND JMFC., NAVALAGUND IN R.A.NO.32/2019 DATED 25.11.2021 AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., NAVALAGUD IN O.S.NO.37/2009 DATED 12.07.2019 BE SET ASIDE THE SUIT AT O.S.NO.37/2009 BE DISMISSED. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2021 in RA No.32/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalgund (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree in OS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1028 RSA No. 100613 of 2022 No.37/2009 decreed on 12.07.2019 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalgund (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the property in question was belong to one Smt. Shahadatbi and gifted the property to the defendants as per Will dated 12.11.1988. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendants have interfered with the suit schedule property and as such plaintiff has filed OS No.37/2009, seeking relief of injunction against the defendants. 4. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The Trial Court has framed the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiff has examined one witness as PW1 and got marked 6 documents as Ex.P1 to P6. The defendants have examined one witness as DW1 and no document has been produced by the defendants. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1028 RSA No. 100613 of 2022 5. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 12.07.2019 decreed the suit and being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred RA No.32/2019 and same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 25.11.2021, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.37/2019. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellants. 6. Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants contended that both the Courts below have not considered the fact that the plaintiffs have not produced any documents to establish their right in respect of suit schedule property and solely based on the deposition of PW1 decreed the suit and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, on perusal of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, the plaintiffs have produced Ex.P6 unregistered Will dated 12.11.1988 and also Tax paid receipts (Ex.P2 and P3) and RTC extracts at Ex.P4 and P5 and it is also not in dispute that the suit is filed seeking relief of permanent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1028 RSA No. 100613 of 2022 injunction. In that view of the matter, the material documents produced by the plaintiffs as per Ex.P1 to P3 makes it clear that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and also it is not in dispute that, OS No.37/2009 filed by the defendants seeking relief of declaration, which came to be dismissed. In that view of the matter, the defendants have not made out a case for interference in respect of impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and also having taken note of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. Appellant has not made out any case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23