- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9062 RSA No. 100776 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100776 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVARAM KRISHNA BHAT, HAVAGUDI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST, R/O: GOKARNA – 581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PARVATI W/O. PRABHAKAR RAIKAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: GOKARNA – 581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 2. PRADEEP RAMANAND NAIK, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVARBAVI – 581 343, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. VENKATA NAGAPPA GOWDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 3. MADEVI VENKATAGOWDA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: ALADAKERI, GOKARNA – 581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 4. SHOBHA D/O. VENKATAGOWDA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ALADAKERI, GOKARNA – 581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 5. MOHAN S/O VENKATAGOWDA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9062 RSA No. 100776 of 2017 R/O: ALADAKERI, GOKARNA – 581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 6. KUMARI HAMMI D/O. VENKATAGOWDA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUWEWIFE R/O: ALADAKERI, GOKARNA – 581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 7. SRI. SADANAND S/O. VENKATAGOWDA, AGE: 25 YEARS, CC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ALADADERI, GOKARNA – 581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 8. SRIDHAR S/O. VENKATAGOWDA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ALADAKERI, GOKARNA – 581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 9. BHARATI D/O. VENKATAGOWDA, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ALADAKERI, GOKARNA – 581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 10. RAVINDRA VENKATRAMANA BHAT, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, GOKARNA – 581 326, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. M. T.BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R10; NOTICE TO R3 & R9 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; R4, R6 TO R8 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KUMTA IN R.A.NO.23/2014 DATED 14. 07. 2017 AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, KUMTA IN O.S.NO.104/2008 DATED 28.10.2014 AS NULL AND VOID IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9062 RSA No. 100776 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as for respondent are present. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the plaintiff who is the respondent No.1 in the present appeal purchased the suit schedule property in terms of deed of sale dated 16.05.2005 from its original owner defendant No.3. The appellant in the present proceedings was the defendant No.1 in the suit, who claims to have purchased the very same property in terms of deed of sale dated 05.03.2005 from the General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.3 and he claims to have subsequently sold the very same property in favour of defendant No.4 in terms of deed of sale dated 15.12.2003. That the plaintiff was therefore constrained to file a suit in OS No.104/2008 which was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, present appellant/defendant No.1 preferred regular appeal in RA No.23/2014 which was also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9062 RSA No. 100776 of 2017 the Trial Court. As against which the present second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that defendant No.4 who had similarly preferred appeal in RSA No.100411/2018, withdrew the same by filing a memo and this Court by order dated 10.01.2025 dismissed the same as withdrawn. 4. Thus, he submits that in the light of defendant No.4, who even according to appellant/defendant No.1 was the subsequent purchaser, having withdrawn the appeal without any contest, defendant No.1 who has no right, title and interest in the subject property has no locus standi to maintain the present appeal. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the same. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9062 RSA No. 100776 of 2017 6. In that view of the matter nothing survives for consideration in this appeal and the same is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SMM/SH CT-ASC / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14