- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944 RSA No. 100270 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100270 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. NAGANGOUDA S/O. IRANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MASTAMARDI – 591 124, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. MAHESH S/O. IRANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MASTAMARDI – 591 124, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHEKHARGOUDA NAGANURI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. BASANGOUDA S/O. SHIVANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MASTAMARDI – 591 124, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI AND SRI. SHARAD M. PATIL, ADVOCATES) THIS REGULA SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. BELAGAVI IN R.A.NO.131/2023; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.1276/2019 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944 RSA No. 100270 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2023 passed in O.S.No.1276/2019 on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi which is confirmed by the judgement and decree dated 11.12.2023 passed in R.A. No.131/2023 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi by which the defendants/appellants herein have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties without due process of law. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff namely Basanagouda and the father of the defendants namely Irangouda were the brothers and the suit properties were belonging to father of the defendants. The plaintiff contended that upon the demise of father of the defendants, the defendants had entered into an agreement of sale on two occasions i.e. on 07.05.1993 and 03.06.1993 agreeing to convey the suit properties in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944 RSA No. 100270 of 2024 his favour by receiving valuable sale consideration. That in furtherance thereof, defendants had submitted varadi on 14.05.1993 to the Tahasildar requesting to enter the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. That having been done, the defendants were interfering with the possession of the plaintiff giving raise to cause of action to file the suit, seeking relief of permanent injunction. 3. The defendants in the written statement denied the very execution of the agreement as contended by the plaintiff. It is further denied that the defendants had given any varadi requesting name of the plaintiff to be entered in the revenue records. Possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties is also denied. It is contented that the plaintiff being the eldest member of the family upon the demise of his brother Iranagouda, who was the father of defendants No.1 and 2, had created false documents to deny the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944 RSA No. 100270 of 2024 4. The Trial court based on pleadings, framed the following issues and recorded the evidence: “Issues 1. Whether the plaintiff proves he is in possession of the suit property as on the date of filing the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants are interfered with his possession? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for? 4. What order or decree?” 5. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties without due process of law. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence, framed the followed points for its consideration: “1. Whether the plaintiff has proved his actual possession and enjoyment of the suit as on the date of filing the suit? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree under appeal is opposed to law, facts, evidence and probabilities of the case and it is liable to be interfered by this Court? 3. What order or decree?” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944 RSA No. 100270 of 2024 6. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the defendants are before this Court. 7. Counsel for appellant submits that since the defendants had specifically denied the very execution of the agreement and they submitted varadi, the plaintiff ought to have sought for substantiative relief of declaration of title. That not having been done, a bare suit for injunction was not maintainable giving raise to substantial question of law. 8. In response, counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have granted bare injunction until the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit properties with due process of law. He submits no rights of the parties have been adjudicated. That the said decree has been granted on the basis of the documents made available and the admission of the DW.1 during the cross-examination. No prejudice would be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944 RSA No. 100270 of 2024 caused to the defendants. It is always open for them to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law seeking removal of the plaintiff. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Counsel for appellants/defendants at this juncture submits that since the judgement and decree has been passed granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff without due process of law, appeal be disposed of reserving liberty to the defendants/appellants to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 10. Submission is taken on record. 11. Since the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court is only conditional subject to removal of the plaintiff in accordance with law, and since the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants is seeking liberty to pursue such remedy as may be available under law seeking removal of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944 RSA No. 100270 of 2024 the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties in accordance with law, nothing survives for consideration in this matter. 12. Reserving liberty to the defendants/appellants as sought for to initiate proceedings against the plaintiff for his removal from the suit schedule properties, the appeal is disposed of. 13. All contentions are kept open. Pending I.A. stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8