- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:317 RSA No. 1793 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1793 OF 2006 (DEC-) BETWEEN: 1. VIJAYA ANNAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O: C/O: R. L. KACHIGOAL BALEKUNDRI VILLAGE, TAL & DIST BELGAUM SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1A SHASHWAT S/O. VIJAY DODDAMANI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. 167, MUKTANGAN SCHOOL, KRISHI COLONY BHAGYNAGAR, 6TH CROSS TILAKWADI, BELAGAUM – 590006. 1B ESHWARI D/O. VIJAY DODDAMANI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. 167 MUKTANGAN SCHOOL, KRISHI COLONY BHAGYNAGAR, 6TH CROSS TILAKWADI, BELAGAUM – 590006. 2. RAJASHEKHAR ANNAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: C/O. R. L. KACHIGOAL, BALEKUNDRI VILLAGE, TAL & DIST BELGAUM - 590 002. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2a. TEJASWNI W/O. LATE RAJASHEKHAR DODDAMANI, AGE: 48 YEARS, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.10 16:42:59 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:317 RSA No. 1793 of 2006 OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SADASHIVNAGAR, WARD NO.4, BELAGAVI – 590009. 2b. KUM OMKAR S/O. LATE RAJASHEKHAR DODDAMANI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SADASHIVNAGAR WARD NO.4, BELAGAVI – 590009. 2c. KUMARI SHRESHA D/O. LATE RAJASHEKHAR DODDAMANI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SADASHIVNAGAR WARD NO.4, BELAGAVI – 590009. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR AND SMT. ANUSHA S. DESAI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. VASANT BHARAMANNA RAJESH, AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O: PLOT NO. 10, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, BELGAUM - 590 002 SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1a. SIDDARTH VASANT RAJESH KAMBLE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. AMBEDKARNAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590008. 1b. SANJAYA VASANTH RAJESH KAMBLE, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN KSRTC, R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590008. 1c. SUNIL VASANTH RAJESH KAMBLE, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590008. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:317 RSA No. 1793 of 2006 1d. SMT. SADHANA W/O. SURENDRA MALGE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED TEACHER, R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590008. 2. ASHOK BHARAMANNA KAMBLE, AGE: 44 YEARS, R/O: DHOLGAARWADI TAL: CHANDAGAD DIST: KOLHAPUR. PIN – 463201. 3. SMT. BABY GUNDU KAMBLE, AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O: THASINAL, TAL: CHANDAGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR, PIN – 463201. 4. SMT. JANABAI APPAYYA DODAMANI, AGE: 38 YEARS, R/ H.NO 206 HALE BELGAUM TAL & DIST BELGAUM - 590 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) –R1(D);) R2, R3 & R4 – APPEAL STANDS ABATED) ------ THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.03.2000 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) BELGAUM IN O.S.NO.229/1998 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.03.2006 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIST JUDGE, BELGAUM IN R.A.NO.87/2004 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:317 RSA No. 1793 of 2006 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In this appeal, the appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The appellants are assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2006 in R.A.No.87/2004 (R.A.No.118/2000 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belagavi) on the file of the Principal District Judge, Belagavi1, dismissing the appeal and as such confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2000 in O.S.No.229/1988 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Belagavi2 dismissing the suit. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father – Annappa Doddamani was the member of the Belagavi Taluka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Co- operative Housing Society Limited, Belagavi3 and as such he had purchased the shares in the above society and in 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:317 RSA No. 1793 of 2006 connection with the same, the society had executed a sale agreement dated 27.06.1981 with the father of the plaintiffs. It is stated by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have paid the entire sale consideration amount to the above society and accordingly the plaintiffs have been put into possession of the schedule property by the society. It is the grievance of the plaintiffs that the defendants have interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs had filed suit in O.S.No.229/1988 before the Trial Court seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. 3. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendants that the land in question is belonging to the defendants and accordingly stated that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in respect of the schedule property and as such disputed the claim made by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:317 RSA No. 1793 of 2006 plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings on record, framed issues and additional issues for its consideration. In order establish their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and six other witnesses as PW.2 to PW.7. The plaintiffs have produced 36 documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.36. On the other hand, defendant No.1(a) was examined as DW.1 and got marked 21 documents as Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.21. 5. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 14.03.2000 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.118/2000 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi and same was made over to the Principal District Judge, Belagavi and renumbered as R.A.No.87/2004. The appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:317 RSA No. 1793 of 2006 decree dated 22.03.2006 dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 6. I have heard Mr.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that both the Courts below have not considered the fact that the society had executed a sale agreement dated 27.06.1981 in favour of the father of the appellants and possession was also handed over to the plaintiff’s father on 30.07.1981 and that apart revenue records have been changed accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs and as such sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, Mr.Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below on the ground that the sale agreement does not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:317 RSA No. 1793 of 2006 convey the right in favour of the agreement holder to claim title in respect of the suit schedule property. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the plaintiffs have produced the sale agreement dated 27.06.1981 (Ex.P.1) and based on the said agreement of sale, seeking right over the property in question. It is also to be noted that the execution of the sale agreement by the society mentioned above in favour of the plaintiffs herein does not convey any right in respect of the suit schedule property unless the execution of the registered sale deed to be made in favour of the plaintiff, where the suit schedule property is the immovable property worth more than Rs.100/-. In the absence of establishment of their title in respect of the suit schedule property, so also as the plaintiffs have failed to prove the fact that the property in question has been conveyed to the father of the plaintiffs in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, I - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:317 RSA No. 1793 of 2006 am of the opinion that, there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 10. Though learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that, possession has been handed over by the said society to the father of the plaintiff, however the possession shall not follow title unless the plaintiffs prove title in respect of the suit schedule property as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh reported in (2006) 5 SCC 558. In view of the aforementioned observations, the appellants have not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24