- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7994 RSA No. 100840 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100840 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVRUDRAPPA @ SURESH BASAPPA BEVINKOPPA, AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O: KELAGERI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 008. 2. SMT. BASAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA BEVINKOPPA, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KELAGERI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 008. 3. SRI. BASAPPA YALLAPPA BEVINKOPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KELAGERI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 008. 4. SMT. KALLAVVA W/O. BASAPPA BELLIKATTI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NANAGUNDILOPPA, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 104. 5. SMT. KASUREVVE W/O. BALAPPA KALASAPPANNAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KYARAKOPPA, TQ AND DIST DHARWAD – 580 007. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7994 RSA No. 100840 of 2022 6. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. MADIVALAPPA MUGAD, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KELAGERI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 008. 7. SMT.YALLAKKA D/O. YALLAPPA BEVINKOPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KELAGERI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 008. 8. SMT.BHIMAVVA D/O. YALLAPPA BEVINKOPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KELAGERI, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 008. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S. L. MATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BALANAGOUDA SHIVANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O: GOUDAR ONI, GULAGANJIKOPPA, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 008. 2. SRI. SUBHASH SHIVANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GOUDAR ONI, GULAGANJIKOPPA, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 008. 3. SRI. BASHASAB ADAMSAB HAWALDAR, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORWAR GALLI, LINE BAZAR, DHARWAD – 580 001. 4. SRI. MEHABOOBALI BASHASAB HAWALDAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORWAR GALLI, LINE BAZAR, DHARWAD – 580 001. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7994 RSA No. 100840 of 2022 5. SRI. MOHAMMEDALI BASHASAB HAWALDAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORWAR GALLI, LINE BAZAR, DHARWAD – 580 001. 6. SRI. SHIRAJ AHMED BASHASAB HAWALDAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORWAR GALLI, LINE BAZAR, DHARWAD – 580 001. 7. SRI. HABEEB BASHASAB HAWALDAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORWAR GALLI, LINE BAZAR, DHARWAD – 580 001. 8. SRI. SHOUKATALI BASHASAB HAWALDAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORWAR GALLI, LINE BAZAR, DHARWAD – 580 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.5/2013 DATED 25.04.2017 BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD, BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.226/2010 DATED 11.12.2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND DECREE THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFF AS PRAYED IN O.S.NO.226/2010, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7994 RSA No. 100840 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 11.12.2012 passed in OS No.226/2010 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Dharwad (for short, ‘Trial Court’), by which the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed which is confirmed by the judgement and order dated 25.04.2017 in RA No.5/2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’). 2. Plaintiffs have filed the above suit seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of suit property in land bearing Plot No.296/2 (old RS No.207) measuring 11.33 acres situated at Kalageri village, taluk Dharwad, on the premise that one Hanumanthgouda Laxmangouda Patil had executed an agreement of sale dated 13.04.1960 in favour of the plaintiffs and one Parvatevva Bevinkoppa for Rs.1,750/-. That the plaintiffs had paid Rs.800/- towards part payment of sale consideration. However, the said person did not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7994 RSA No. 100840 of 2022 come forward to execute the sale deed. That due to illiteracy plaintiffs did not file Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights. However, plaintiffs submitted Form No.7-A subsequently, which was rejected by the concerned authorities by order dated 29.11.2004. As against which the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in Appeal No.130/2005 which is pending consideration. That though the defendants are strangers to the property have created false documents in the nature of deeds of sale and deed of partition had obtained entries of their names in the revenue records based on which they are attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit. 3. The defendants in their written statement apart from denying the claim of the plaintiffs having any right, title and interest in the suit property have also contended that they are the absolute owner of the suit property being in possession of the same and as such the suit for bare injunction was just not maintainable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7994 RSA No. 100840 of 2022 4. Based on which, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants? 3. Whether defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration as contended in para No.4 of the written statement? 4. Whether defendants prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit in view of Land Reforms Act as contended in para No.8 of the written statement? 5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? 6. What order or decree? 5. The Trial Court recorded the evidence and on appreciation of evidence, applying the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy1, dismissed the suit as not maintainable. 1 (2008) 4 SCC 594 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7994 RSA No. 100840 of 2022 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred regular appeal in RA No.5/2013. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property? 2. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court require interference in this Appeal by this Court? 3. What Decree of Order? 7. Taking note of the admitted facts of the case of the plaintiffs of they claiming to be the agreement holder as well as they waiting for orders in the appeal filed by them before the Tribunal and upon the rejection of their application in Form No.7-A, and taking into consideration of the contents of the written statement filed by the defendants, held that the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved with the same, the present appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7994 RSA No. 100840 of 2022 8. It is contended that there is a delay of 1173 days in filing the present appeal. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed. A better affidavit dated 24.06.2025 is also filed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant taking this Court through to the contents of the affidavit submits that though the appellants/plaintiffs were aware of the disposal of the regular appeal, they were unable to prefer any appeal due to financial reasons. They obtained financial assistance from their relatives and only thereafter, they filed the present appeal. Hence, seeks for condonation of delay. 10. Heard. Perused the records. 11. “Sufficient Cause” for the purpose of condonation of delay as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be with reference to the inability of the party to prefer appeal within the period prescribed for the purpose of filing of the appeal and the reasons must cover the whole period of delay. There is no whisper in the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7994 RSA No. 100840 of 2022 of delay regarding there being any sufficient cause for not filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. However, in the better affidavit dated 24.06.2022, the plaintiff has attempted to make out a ground on financial inability which cannot be accepted for the reason that if at all the plaintiff was unable to pay the Court fee, which in any case was only a sum of Rs.25/- to be paid in terms of Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, the appellant could either have availed the legal aid services. In the circumstances of the case, the ground of financial distress in filing the present appeal cannot be considered to be the sufficient cause for condonation of enormous delay of 1173 days. 12. Even on merits, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken note of the fact that the defendants, apart from denying the case of the plaintiff have also set up right, title and interest over the suit property in themselves admittedly based on deeds of sale and deed of partition. They have also claimed to be in possession of the suit property, as such no fault can be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7994 RSA No. 100840 of 2022 found with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and the First Appellate court in dismissing the suit applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anatula sudhakara (supra). No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear, the appellants may avail such other remedy as may be permissible under law. 13. Pending IAs., if any, do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SMM-para 01 to 7 VMB-para 7 to till end CT-ASC / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48