- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7381 RSA No. 100772 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL RSA NO.100772/2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: IRAPPA S/O. IRAPPA MAKAALI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GODACHI, TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. YALLANAGOUDA S/O. MALLANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GODACHI, TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. 2. PARUTAGOUDA S/O. MALLANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BADIGER ONI, GODACHI, TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. 3. SHANKARGOUDA S/O. MALLANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BUDIHAL (KONNUR), TQ: NARAGUNDA, DIST: GADAG – 582 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.K.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RAMDURG R.A. (FR) NO.13/2023. IN O.S. NO.147/2021 DATED 30.10.2023 CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAMDURG AND ETC., Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7381 RSA No. 100772 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The above appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order, dated 27.06.2024, passed in R.A. (FR) No.13/2023, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg, Belgaum, by which the First Appellate Court disposed off the appeal filed by the appellant hererin under Section 96 of the CPC, even before registration of the same, on the premise that the appellant herein not being party to the suit in O.S. No.147/2021 was not aggrieved party and as such the appeal was not maintainable. 3. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant herein had entered into a registered agreement of sale, dated 25.06.2014 with respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein agreeing to purchase an extent of 2 acre 9 guntas of land, out of 8 acres 7 guntas of land in R.S. No.293/3, situated at Godachi Village of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7381 RSA No. 100772 of 2024 Ramdurga Taluka, for valuable consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-. The said agreement has been registered before the Sub-Registrar. Due to non-performance of the terms of the agreement by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, the appellant herein filed suit for specific performance in O.S. No.216/2022, on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramdurg, which is still pending consideration. 4. It appears that even before the appellant initiating the said suit, respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit in O.S. No.147/2021 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein seeking partition and separate possession of the aforesaid land, measuring 8 acres 7 guntas in R.S. No.293/3. The said suit came to be decreed, apparently without contest by the judgment and decree, dated 30.10.2023, by the trial Court granting the relief of partition, as sought for. 5. The appellant having learnt about the said judgment and decree, preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, which was numbered as R.A. (FR) No.13/2023. By the impugned order, the First Appellate Court disposed off the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7381 RSA No. 100772 of 2024 said appeal holding that, the appellant herein not being a party to the suit in O.S. No.147/2021 was not an aggrieved party, as such the appeal was not maintainable. It is this order, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. 6. This Court framed the following substantial question of law for its consideration: “Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal even before its registration on the premise of appellant not being party to the suit in O.S. No.147/2021 was not an aggrieved party and as such the appeal was not maintainable? 7. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of H. Anjanappa & Ors. Vs. A.Prabhakar & Ors. and H. Anjanappa & Ors. Vs. Beena Anthony & Ors.1 and submits that the appellant being a agreement holder in respect of the portion of the property, which is the subject matter of the said suit in O.S. No.147/2021 is definitely a party interested in the subject 1 AIR 2025 SC 924 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7381 RSA No. 100772 of 2024 matter of the suit. That the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.147/2021 without making him a party would affect his interest substantially. Therefore, he is an aggrieved party as contemplated under Section 96 of the CPC. He submits that along with the appeal, an application was also filed seeking leave to prosecute the appeal. That the First Appellate Court without looking into provisions of law has disposed off the appeal by holding that, the appellant is not an aggrieved party as he was not party to the suit. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the interest of the appellant would be protected inasmuch as the total extent of the property is 8 acres 7 guntas and the appellant has purchased only 2 acres 9 guntas. Since the said property has been divided into three equal shares, the share of his vendor is intact, which he can seek equity while dividing the property by meets and bounds. 10. In response, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the said submission appears to be acceptable, there is apprehension in the mind of the appellant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7381 RSA No. 100772 of 2024 that the parties may litigate further with regard to feasibility of division of the property inasmuch as the appellant by virtue of the registered agreement has been delivered with the possession of the property. He submits that in any case even for the purpose of working out equity necessary order is required to passed in the judgment, in O.S. No.147/2021, taking into consideration the agreement entered into between the appellant herein and respondent Nos.2 and 3. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal by answering the substantial question of law in their favour. 11. Heard. Perused the records. 12. It is settled principle of law that any person, who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of Appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the Judgment in some favour or the other. The judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of H. Anjanappa, supra squarely covers this principle of law requiring no elaboration. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7381 RSA No. 100772 of 2024 13. The appellant in the instant case having entered into agreement with respondents No.2 and 3 to purchase portion of the property which is subject matter of judgment and decree in O.S.No.147/2021 passed him not being party would be bound by the same. If he has any grievance, same needs to be addressed in accordance with law. The First Appellate Court has erred in not noticing this aspect of the matter. Furthermore, even before taking the said appeal on record by allotting the regular appeal number, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal holding the same as not maintainable as being ‘aggrieved party’, merely because he was not party to the suit in O.S.No.147/2021. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the appellant, illegality requires to be set aside. The substantial question of law is therefore answered accordingly. 14. Resultantly, the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed. b) Impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7381 RSA No. 100772 of 2024 to the First Appellate Court, who shall pass an appropriate order taking into consideration the merits of the case, after affording sufficient opportunities to the parties. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP & SH / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21