- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930 RSA No. 5421 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5421 OF 2009 (-) BETWEEN: JANDISAB S/O. IMAMSAB MAJJAGI, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LR’S. 1A) SMT. JAIRABI W/O. JANDISAB MAJJAGI AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 1B) MAHABOOBI W/O. BABAJAN KITTUR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 1C) RAFIK S/O. JANDISAB MAJJAGI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 1D) MANSOF S/O. JANDISAB MAJJAGI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 1E) FATHIMA W/O. SHARIFSAB DYAMPUR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 1F) ISHAK S/O. JANDISAB MAJJAGI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930 RSA No. 5421 of 2009 1G) IMAMHUSSAIN S/O. JANDISAB MAJJAGI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. BABASAB S/O. IMAMSAB MAJJAGI, SINCE DECEASED HIS LR’S. 2A) SMT. IMAMBI W/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 2B) ABDULGANI S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 2C) NASIM W/O. HANIFSAB UMACHAGI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 2D) YUSUF S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 2E) CHANDBI W/O. SHAKASHVALI PATHAN AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 2F) NAZEER S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 2G) MOHAMMADJAFAR S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930 RSA No. 5421 of 2009 R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 2H) SADIQ S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 2I) HUMAYUN S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. 3. DAVALSAB S/O. IMAMSAB MAJJAGI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSA GARADI ONI, BETAGERI, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. PADMAJA TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRESIDENT, VIDHYADANA SAMITI, GADAG, TQ & DIST: GADAG. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY D.C. GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R2) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 08/08/2005 IN O.S.NO:236/2004 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) GADAG AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21/03/2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.113/2005 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) GADAG IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930 RSA No. 5421 of 2009 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009 in R.A.No.113/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Gadag1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2005 in O.S.No.236/2004 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gadag2 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is belong to father of the plaintiffs – Imamsab Majjagi, who died during 1975. It is also stated that defendant No.1 is the lessee of the suit schedule property and further the defendant No.2 has taken 5 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930 RSA No. 5421 of 2009 guntas of the land vide order 05.12.2000 and therefore it is the case of the plaintiffs that the names of the plaintiffs have to be entered in the revenue records, by deleting the names which are already existed in the revenue records. It is also stated in the plaint that the father of the plaintiffs has leased out the land in question for a lease period of 99 years in favour of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 is running girls high school, on payment of rent of Rs.160/- per year to the plaintiffs – lesser. Hence, it is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs have to be declared as the owners of the schedule land and to enter their names in the CTS records and accordingly, filed O.S.No.236/2004 seeking the prayer as stated in the plaint. 4. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement. It is the specific contention of defendant No.1 that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit schedule property and the suit land was vested in the Government during 1949 and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930 RSA No. 5421 of 2009 thereafter, by order 05.12.2000, 5 guntas of the land was allotted in favour of Red Cross Association and also it is stated that defendant No.1 is not the lessee of the father of the plaintiffs and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. It is also stated that the sanad has been issued by the Government of Bombay on 16.06.1949 and in terms of the same, the defendant No.1 has become absolute owner of the suit land and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The defendant No.2, has filed separate written statement, supporting the contention of defendant No.1 and stated that as per the order passed during 1949, the records pertaining to the land in question stands in the name of defendant No.1 and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. 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 two - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930 RSA No. 5421 of 2009 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and produced 15 documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.15. The defendants have examined one witness as DW.1 and got marked 5 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.5. 7. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 08.08.2005 dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.113/2005 on the file of the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009, dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.236/2004. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 8. I have heard Smt.Padmaja Tadapatri for Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Girish Yadawad for Sri.V.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930 RSA No. 5421 of 2009 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the fact that the father of the plaintiffs was the owner of the land in question and in this regard, both Courts below have not considered Ex.P.10, to accept the averments made in the plaint and therefore sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the basis of Ex.D.1 is the lease deed in which the land in question has been leased for a period of 99 years as per Ex.P.10 and therefore sought for interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that, the land in question is an Inam land and thereafter the land in question was vested with the Government and thereafter there was no regrant order in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930 RSA No. 5421 of 2009 11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the findings recorded by both the Courts below. The plaintiffs are claiming right over the suit schedule property based on the title vested with the father of the plaintiffs and the suit land is an Inam land. It is also forthcoming from the findings recorded by the Courts below that, after the land in question was vested with the Government, the Government of Bombay by order dated 16.06.1949 granted the land in favour of the defendant No.1 as per sanad - Ex.D.1. 12. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court after considering the entire material on record as per the observation made at para Nos.23 to 25, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have not placed any material to establish their right over the suit schedule property and further the defendant No.1 has produced Ex.D.1 to substantiate its right over the schedule property. It is also to be noted that the plaintiffs have not taken any steps for - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930 RSA No. 5421 of 2009 cancellation of Ex.D.1, which makes it clear that the finding recoded by both Courts below is just and proper and no interference is called for. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission as the appellants have not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18