- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5409 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ-) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5410 OF 2010 IN RSA NO.5409/2010 BETWEEN: YELLAPPA S/O. SANJEEVAPPA , AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: KOWL-BODUR, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. VIRUPAXAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA ANGADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 1(A) NIRMALA W/O. VIRUPAXAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 62, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 1(B) SHEKAVVA D/O. VIRUPAXAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 1(C) SMT. JAYASHRI W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR PATTANASHETTY, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO.250, DFA TOWNSHIP, DANDELI-581325, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARKANNADA. 1(D) SMT. MALA W/O. SANGAPPA MENTAGERI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: UPPAR ONI, SINDHANOOR-584123, TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: KOPPAL. (RESPONDNETS NO.1 AND 1(A) EXPIRED AND R1(B) TO (D) ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS) 2. SMT. AMARAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 3. VEERESH S/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 4. MISS. KALAKAMMA D/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI, AGE: MINOR, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER SMT. AMARAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI, THE RESPONDENT NO.2. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4, R1(B, C & D) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII, RULE 1 OF C.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, KOPPAL, IN R.A.NO.1/2002, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4TH JANUARY 2002, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, IN O.S. NO.57/1994, ON HIS FILE, AND BY DECREEING THE SAID SUIT AS PRAYED, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. IN RSA NO.5410/2010 BETWEEN: YELLAPPA S/O. SANJEEVAPPA , AGE: YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: KOWL-BODUR, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. BASAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA ANGADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. 2. SMT. PARVATEVVA W/O. ERAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. 3. SHARANAPPA S/O. ERAPPA ANGADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. 4. SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA ANAGADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 DIST: KOPPAL-583236. DEAD BY HIS LR’S. 4A. MISS. KALAKAMMA D/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 4B. VEERESH S/O. LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4C. SMT. RATNAMMA D/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI W/O. MALLAPPA GULAGOUDAR AGE: 43 YEARS, 4D. SMT. SHIVAGANGA D/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI, W/O. CHANDRAKANT ANGADI, AGE: 41 YEARS, 4E. CHANNAVEERAPPA S/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI, W/O. DODDABAAPPA BUDIHAL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4F. SMT. SHANTA D/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI, W/O. DODDABASAPPA BUDIHAL, AGE: 35 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. VANGAERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI. 5. BAYAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA LAMANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. 6. NANAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA LAMANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. 7. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. VEERBHADRAPPA ANGADI, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. 8. CHANNAVEERAPPA S/O. VEERBHADRAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT & AGRICULTURE, R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. 9. MISS. GUNDAVVA D/O. VEERBHADRAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. RESPONDENT-9, BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND MOTHER SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. VEERBHADRAPPA ANGADI, RESPONDENT NO.7. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3, R4(A-C) & R7-R9; R5 & R6-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII, RULE 1 OF C.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, KOPPAL, IN R.A.NO.2/2002, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4TH JANUARY 2002, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, IN O.S. NO.54/1994, ON HIS FILE, AND BY DECREEING THE SAID SUIT AS PRAYED, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.03.2025 MARCH, 2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV JUDGMENT 1. RSA No.5409 of 2010 is filed by plaintiff No.2 challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010 passed in R.A.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Koppal, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2002 passed in O.S.No.57 of 1994 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Koppal, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. RSA No.5410 of 2010 is filed by plaintiff No.2 challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010 passed in R.A.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Koppal, (for short “the First Appellate Court”) allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2002 passed in O.S.No.54 of 1994 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Koppal, (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 3. Since question of law involved in these appeals arising out of same parties and therefore, the appeals were - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court. FACTS IN RSA NO.5409 OF 2010: 5. The plaint averments are that, the land bearing Sy.No.107/2, measuring 28 acres, 09 guntas, situate at Vanageri Village, Kustagi Taluk, is a part of the Sy.No.107/A, as per Khasara pahani. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the schedule property is belonging to father of plaintiff No.1- Mallappa Hoskeri and he died 50 years ago and thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 being only daughter has succeeded to the suit schedule property. It is also stated in the plaint that, on account of family necessity, the plaintiff No.1 was residing at Goa for sometime, however, used to visit Vanageri village frequently. It is further stated that one Mallappa s/o. Shivappa Angadi, (father of defendant No.1 and 2) was entrusted to assist the plaintiff No.1 in agricultural operation and after the death of said Mallappa, defendants being the sons of said - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 Mallappa were assisting the plaintiff No.1 in cultivating the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 left Goa permanently and returned to native place to reside during the year April, 1994 and was personally cultivating the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that name of the defendants was incorporated in the record of rights in respect of the subject land and as such, plaintiff has filed O.S.No.57 of 1994 seeking relief of declaration and injunction and also alternatively sought for relief of possession in respect of the suit property. 6. After service of summons, 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 plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit land and plaintiff No.1 is not the daughter of Mallappa and also stated that, their father-Mallappa was cultivating the land in question for decades and accordingly, defendants became the owners of the land in question. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 8. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 01 document as Exs.P1. On the other hand, defendants have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 15 documents as Exs.D1 to D15. 9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 04.01.2002 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred Regular Appeal in R.A.No.1 of 2002 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after re- appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.57 of 1994. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred RSA No.5409 of 2010 under Section 100 of CPC. FACTS IN RSA NO.5410 OF 2010: 10. The plaint averments are that, the land bearing Sy.No.107/1, measuring 13 acres, 24 guntas, situate at Vanageri Village, Kustagi Taluk, is a part of the Sy.No.107/A, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 as per Khasara pahani. It is the case of the plaintiff that the schedule property is belonging to father of plaintiff No.1- Mallappa Hosakeri and he died 50 years ago and thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 being only daughter has succeeded to the suit schedule property. It is also stated in the plaint that, on account of family necessity, the plaintiff No.1 was residing at Goa for some time, however, used to visit Vanageri village frequently. It is also stated that one Channaveerappa Veerabasappa Angadi, (father of defendant Nos.1 to 4) was entrusted to assist the plaintiff No.1 in agricultural operation and after the death of said Mallappa, defendants being the sons of said Mallappa were assisting the plaintiff No.1 in cultivating the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 left Goa permanently and returned to native place to reside during the year April, 1994 and was personally cultivating the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that name of the defendants was incorporated in the record of rights in respect of the subject land and as such, plaintiff has filed O.S. No.54 of 1994 seeking relief of declaration and injunction and also alternatively sought for relief of possession in respect of the suit property. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 11. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 that the plaintiffs are not owners of the suit land and plaintiff No.1 is not a daughter of Mallappa and also stated that, their father-Channaveerappa Angadi, was cultivating the land in question for decades and accordingly, defendant Nos. 1 to 4 became owners of the land in question. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 12. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. 13. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 02 documents as Exs.P1 and P2. On the other hand, defendants have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 19 documents as Exs.D1 to D19. 14. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 04.01.2002 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred Regular Appeal in R.A.No.2 of 2002 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.54 of 1994. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred RSA No.5410 of 2010 under Section 100 of CPC. 15. This Court, in RSA No.5409/2010, vide order dated 02.02.2016 formulated the following substantial question of law. 1) Whether the first appellate Court was right in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property? 2) Whether the first appellate Court was right in declining to grant the consequential relief of possession to the plaintiff? 16. This Court, in RSA No.5410/2010, vide order dated 26.10.2016 formulated the following substantial question of law. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 “Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is perverse in holding that the revenue entries are not documents of title when it is specifically pleaded that properties are ancestral in nature?” 17. I have heard Sri. Shriharsha A Neelopant, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri. P. G. Mogali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1(B), (C) & (D) and 2 to 4. 18. Sri. Shriharsha A Neelopant, learned counsel for the appellants submits that, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in not considering the fact that, the father of the plaintiff No.1 was owner of the land in question and the Khasara pahani produced at Ex.P1 would establish the legal right of the father of the plaintiff No.1 as the owner of the land in question and the said aspect of the matter was not considered by the First Appellate Court. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in investigating into the relationship of Sri. Mallappa–father of the plaintiff with plaintiff No.1, without considering the revenue records for more than five decades, which clearly establishes that the plaintiff No.1 is - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 the daughter of Mallappa. In this regard, it is argued that the First Appellate Court has ignored the evidence of PW3. 19. Nextly, it is contended by learned counsel Sri. Shriharsha A Neelopant for the appellants that, Ex.D1 is only the record of rights, which shows about the possessory title and not the ownership in respect of subject land and that apart, Ex.D1 indicates the name of Hosagerappa and the defendants have not proved their relationship with the said Hosagerappa and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 20. Based on the submission with regard to Ex.P1, learned counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jt. Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another v/s. D. Narasing Rao and others1 and held that, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires to be confirmed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. 21. Per Contra, Sri.P.G.Mogali, learned counsel for the respondents submits that plaintiff No.1 is not the daughter of 1 AIR 2015 SC 1021 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 Mallappa. He further contended that, the entries in RTC Extracts does not confer title and it is the duty of the plaintiff No.1 to make out a case based on the title and possession and therefore, he argued that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is just and proper, which does not call for interference in these appeals. He also argued that, long course of entries in the RTC extracts cannot be ignored as it stands in the name of defendants and have presumptive value and therefore, to buttress his arguments he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhagiya Van Adhikari, Awadh Van Prabhag v. Arun Kumar Bharadwaj (Dead) through L.Rs and others2 and in the case of Sri.Bhimeshwara Swami Varu Temple v. Pedapudi Krishna Murthi and others3 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeals. 22. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.57/1994 and O.S.No.54/1994 against the defendants seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief that the 2 AIR 2021 SC 4739 3 (1973) 2 SCC 261 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 land bearing SY.No.107/2 measuring 20 acres 9 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.107/1 measuring 13 acres 24 guntas at Vanageri village, Kushtagi Taluk is part of Sy.No.107/A and same was belonged to the father of the plaintiff-Mallappa Hosakeri. On the other hand, the defendants contended that the defendants were in possession of the land in question continuously for more than two decades and the plaintiff is not the daughter of Mallappa Hosakeri. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, particularly referring to Ex.P1-Khasara Pahani, held that the said document stands in the name of the father of the plaintiff-Mallappa Hosakeri. Accordingly, decreed the suit. 23. The First Appellate Court, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the entry made in Ex.D1 shows that Hosagerappa, and the stray entries in Ex.P1 cannot be considered to declare the title of the property in question. In the backdrop of this aspect, I have given my anxious consideration to the document produced at Ex.P1, which is a Khasara Pahani of the land in question for the year 1954, which reflects the name of Mallappa (father of the plaintiff). Ex.D1 was prepared in the year 1954 wherein name - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 of the plaintiff No.1 shown as the daughter of Mallappa or Hosagerappa. Both Ex.P1 and D1 shows that one Hosagerappa S/o.Mallappa and the name of the plaintiff No.1 was entered in the year 1954. It is the case of the defendants that the name of the defendants was entered in the possessory column of the land records and the name of the plaintiff No.1 was incorporated after 1954 in the revenue records and these entries reflecting the name of the plaintiff No.1 do not confer title to the plaintiff No.1. In the said aspect of the matter, I have carefully considered the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Counsel in the case of D.Narasing Rao (supra) wherein it is held that Khasara Pahani would serve the purpose of deed of title when there is no other title deeds. It is also to be noted that Khasara is a register recording the incidents of tenure and is a historical record which would serve the purpose of a deed of title, when there is no other title deeds. In the said aspect of the matter, taking into consideration the Ex.P1 and Ex.D1, I am of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that the judgments referred to by the respondents herein indicate that the entries - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 in the RTC does not confer title and the long entries in the records of rights cannot be ignored. These aspects cannot be imported for the factual aspects on record as the plaintiff has produced the title deed, particularly, Ex.P1-Khasara Pahani, which stands in the name of the father of the plaintiff-Mallappa. It is also to be noted that the PW2 and PW3 have deposed that the plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of Mallappa and therefore, the said unimpeachable evidence corroborates the case of the plaintiff No.1 and the said finding by the Trial Court cannot be interfered with in these appeals. It is also pertinent to mention here that as the name of the father of the plaintiff-Mallappa was shown in the Khasara Pahani-Ex.P1, I am of the view that the Trial Court on careful examination of the material on record, rightly decreed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in interfering with the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and further, the First Appellate Court has not re-appreciated the material on record in the right perspective. Hence, the substantial question of law framed above favours the plaintiffs and as such, I pass the following: - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622 RSA No. 5409 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010 ORDER i) Both the appeals are allowed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010 in R.A.No.1/2002 and the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010 R.A. No.2/2002 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Koppal, are hereby set aside. iii) The judgment and decree dated 04.01.2002 in O.S.No.57/1994 and the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2002 in O.S.No.54/1994 passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Koppal, are hereby confirmed. iv) Suit in O.S.No.57/1994 and suit in O.S. No.54/1994 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Koppal, are hereby decreed. v) In view of disposal of the appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42