- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3032 RSA No. 100629 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100629 OF 2022 (DEC-) BETWEEN: VEERAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA SONNAD, SON OF LATE NINGAPPA SONNAD, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT GAJENDRAGAD, RON TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT, PIN CODE -582114. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAQBOOL PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG PIN CODE - 582 101. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, RON TALUK, RON, GADAG DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 582209. 3. MALLAPPA S/O. KALAKAPPA MUSHIGERI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT PURTAGERI VILLAGE, GAJENDRAGAD HOBLI, RON TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT, PIN CODE-582114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VADIRAJ P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3032 RSA No. 100629 of 2022 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2021 MADE IN R.A.NO.12/2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., RON AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., RON IN O.S.NO.244/2010 DATED 01.03.2021 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY DECREEING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 in R.A.No.12/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2021 in O.S.No.244/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron2 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3032 RSA No. 100629 of 2022 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.3 as per the agreement of sale dated 01.07.1994 to purchase the suit land bearing Sy.No.23 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas situate at Kurtagiri village, Ron taluk, Gadag district. It is also stated in the plaint that the suit land is an Inam land granted in favour of defendant No.3 as per the provisions contained under Bombay Saranjam Inam Abolition Act, dated 13.03.1969. It is also stated that defendant No.3 has delivered possession of the land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in actual possession of the land in question, however, it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.3 has not executed the registered sale deed. It is also stated in the plaint that, defendant No.1 – Deputy Commissioner by order dated 30.09.1996 forfeited the suit property to the Government and therefore, sought for declaration that the forfeiture of the suit property by defendant No.1 dated 30.09.1996 is void and directed defendant No.3 to execute the registered sale deed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3032 RSA No. 100629 of 2022 4. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed separate written statements. Defendants No.1 and 2 contended that the land in question was granted to defendant No.3 subject to terms and conditions stipulated in the grant order dated 13.03.1969 as the defendants No.1 and 2 came to know that defendant No.3 has violated the conditions imposed on the suit property and as such defendant No.1 by order dated 30.09.1996 forfeited the suit land and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. Defendant No.3 has filed separate written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable and it is the contention of defendant No.3 that the land in question has been forfeited by defendants No.1 and 2 and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined four witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and produced 23 documents - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3032 RSA No. 100629 of 2022 and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.23. The defendants have examined four witnesses as DW.1 to DW.4 and produced 9 documents and same were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.9. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 01.03.2021 dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.12/2021 on the file of the First Appellate Court and same was contested by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021, dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.244/2010. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. I have heard Sri.Maqbool Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.Vadiraj P Vadavi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Smt.Mala - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3032 RSA No. 100629 of 2022 B Bhute, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that both the Courts below have not considered the evidence on record particularly PW.1 to PW.4 to corroborate the evidence insofar as Exs.P.1 to P.23 is concerned as the plaintiff has entered into an agreement with defendant No.3 on 01.07.1994. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that defendant No.3 has handed over the possession to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of sale by receiving consideration amount and therefore sought for refund of the same. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that as the land in question has been forfeited by defendant No.1 and further same has been confirmed in W.A.No.7456/1999 dated 04.04.2000 and therefore appeal itself is not maintainable. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3032 RSA No. 100629 of 2022 10. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3/respondent No.3 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the findings recorded by the Courts below. On careful examination of the finding recorded by the Courts below would indicate that the plaintiff intended to purchase the suit property and as such entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.3 as per the sale agreement dated 01.07.1994. It is also not in dispute that the suit property is an Inam land granted in favour of the father of defendant No.3 on 13.03.1969. It is also forthcoming from the order dated 04.04.2000 in W.A.No.7456/1999 and 8187/1999, wherein the Division Bench of this Court upheld the forfeiture order passed by defendant No.1 and in that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this appeal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3032 RSA No. 100629 of 2022 12. Since the appellant herein has not made out a case for interference by formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15