- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:126 RSA No. 100216 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100216 OF 2022 (INJ-) BETWEEN: IMTIYAZ AHMED MURADSAB KOTWAL AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. CTS NO. 5179, MUSLIM GALLI, ANGOL, BELGAVI 590006. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI - 590016. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BELAGAVI – 590016. 3. SHRI. M. P. SAVARGOL, POLICE INSPECTOR, TILAKWADI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI - 590016. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA FILED U/O XLII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.448/2013 ON THE FILE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BELAGAVI AND IN R.A.NO.21/2020 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE OR MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI IN R.A. NO.21/2020 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2020 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.448/2013. Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:126 RSA No. 100216 of 2022 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 second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2020 in R.A.No.21/2020 on the file of the III-Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi (for short “the First Appellate Court”) confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2020 in O.S.No.448/2013 on the file of the V-Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi (for short “the Trial Court”) dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is averred in the plaint that the ancestors of the plaintiff were doing Talawarki in Talathi’s office at Angol. In lieu of their service rendered in the said office, the government had granted the suit land as Inam and as such, claim made by the plaintiff is with regard to 31 Guntas of land in R.S.No.47/4, CTS No.3869 of Angol Mal, Belagavi. It is also stated in the plaint that the land in question has been utilized by the ancestors of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:126 RSA No. 100216 of 2022 the plaintiff to burry their ancestors and therefore, it is shown in the records of right as a “Mashan (Shamshan)”. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has also filed O.S.No.2316/2012 before the competent Civil Court seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction, which came to be dismissed on 26.02.2014. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the respondents herein are interfering with the construction put up by the plaintiff in the schedule land and as such, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.448/2013 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. 3.1. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance, however, defendant No.3 has contested the matter by filing a written statement. It is the specific case of defendant No.3 that the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be entitled for equitable relief in this suit and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court framed issues and thereafter recasted the issues for consideration. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and produced 25 documents and same were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:126 RSA No. 100216 of 2022 defendants have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 03.01.2020, dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed R.A.No.21/2020 and same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 03.10.2020 dismissed the appeal and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard Sri. Vittal Teli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have ignored the fact that the ancestors of the plaintiff were rendering service in Talathi’s office at Angol and in lieu of service rendered by them, suit land was granted as per Ex.P12 and therefore, the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be interfered with in this appeal. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and on careful examination of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, it would - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:126 RSA No. 100216 of 2022 indicate that the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.231/2012 in respect of very same property, which came to be dismissed and same was admitted by him in the cross-examination. It is also to be noted that the documents referred to by the plaintiff would not substantiate his right over the property in question and no acceptable document has been produced by the appellant except the oral deposition made during the evidence and further perusal of Ex.P11 indicate that the suit property stands in the name of the Assistant Commissioner, Belagavi. In that view of the matter, as the plaintiff has not produced any acceptable evidence to substantiate his right over the schedule property including his lawful possession in respect of the suit schedule property, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly as there is no substantial question of law to be framed in the present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30