- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822 RSA No. 100022 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100022 OF 2018 (DEC-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKKAVVA D/O. PARASAPPA DODANNAVAR, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590016. 2. SMT. ITTAWWA D/O. PARASAPPA DODANNAVAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590016. 3. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. PARASAPPA DODANNAVAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590016. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PARASAPPA MALLAPPA DODANNAVAR, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590016. 2. SRI. LAXAMAPPA S/O. PARASAPPA DODANNAVAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590016. 3. SRI. BASAVANNI S/O. MALLAPPA LATTI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590016. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.18 10:57:29 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822 RSA No. 100022 of 2018 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS AND DECREES PASSED IN R.A.NO.214/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK PASSED ON 20.10.2016 AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.156/2004 DATED 24.02.2010 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) GOKAK AT GOKAK AND TO DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016 passed in RA No.214/2010 on the file of XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010 passed in OS No.156/2004 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gokak (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822 RSA No. 100022 of 2018 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and as such, sought for declaration that, the suit property has been illegally sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and same is not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed OS No.156/2004, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction. 4. After service of summons, the defendant No.3 entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant No.3 that, the defendant No.3 is bonafide purchaser of the suit property as per the registered sale deed dated 05.11.2003 and the defendant No.3 is in the possession of suit schedule property and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822 RSA No. 100022 of 2018 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. 6. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked 06 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On the other hand, defendants have examined eight witnesses DW1 to DW8 and produced 20 documents as Exs.D1 to D20. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in part and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred Regular Appeal in RA No.214/2010 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016 dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.156/2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822 RSA No. 100022 of 2018 8. I have heard Sri. R. K. Kulkarni,, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 9. Sri. R. K. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, the suit land is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 as per the partition deed dated 13.10.2003 and the respondent No.1 relinquished his rights and executed the registered sale deed dated 05.11.2003 in favour of defendant No.3 which is bad in law and said aspect of the matter is not considered by both the Courts below. 10. It is also contended that, there was no legal necessity to sell the suit land by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and therefore, sought for interference by this Court. 11. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below. It is not in dispute that, the defendant No.1 is the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff No.3. The defendant No.1 has sold the suit land in favour - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822 RSA No. 100022 of 2018 of defendant No.3 as per registered sale deed dated 05.11.2003. 12. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Trial Court as to issue No.1 and 2 is concerned as the defendant No.1 has sold the property of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 for valuable consideration as per the registered document and therefore, I do not find any material irregularities or perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal fails. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22