- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2369 OF 2007 (SP) C/W RSA CROSS OBJ NO.52 OF 2010 IN RSA.NO.2369/2007: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RENUKA PARASHURAM GURAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.R’S ARE APPELLANTS NO.2, 4 AND 5. 2. SHRI. PARASHURAM LAXMAN GURAV, AGE:52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KATAGALI VILLAGE – 591 302, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI. VILAS LAXMAN GURAV, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KATAGALI VILLAGE – 591 302, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SHRI. PRATAP PARSHURAM GURAV, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KATAGALI VILLAGE – 591 302, TQ: KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI. 5. SHRI. SUNIL PARASHURAM GURAV, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KATAGALI VILLAGE – 591 302, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI. 6. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. LAXMAN GURAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.RS APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3. APPELLANTS 1 TO 6 ARE REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SHRI. LATIFKHAN AMEERKHAN PATHAN, Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTE & BUSINESS, R/O: 2682/A, KASAI GALLI, BELAGAVI - 590 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B. S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. JUDE DE SOUZA S/O. EDGAR DE SOUZA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. 1A. JUDE ERIC DE SOUZA S/O. JUDE DE SOUZA, R/O: DHUN MAHAL, GARDEN ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI – 400 039. 1B. JOLENE DE SOUZA D/O. JUDE ERIC DE SOUZA, R/O: 308 CROSS ROADS, AVENUE RESIDENCES, EASERN BYPASS, ARLEM, FOTORDS, GOA – 403 720. 2. SMT. SYANORA GONSALVES SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 2A. MS. DANIELLE D/O. THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE: NOT KNOWN, R/O: IIND FLOOR, DHUM MAHAL, GARDEN ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI. 2B. MR. GISELLE GONSALVES, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: NO.455 FLOOR, APACHE COURT, UNIT 140, MISSISSAUGE ONTARIO, LAZ4W8, CANADA. 2C. MR. NYALL THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: NO.3091, DOYLE STREET, MISSISAUGE ONTARIO, LAZ3W8, CANADA. 2D. MR. NIGEL THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: NO.3091, DOYLE STREET, MISSISSUAGE ONTARIO, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 LAZ3W8, CANADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2( TO D); SRI. R I D'SA AND SMT. SUNITHA H. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED: 20.06.2025 R19A) AND R1(B) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) IN RSA.CROB.NO.52/2010: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SYANORA W/O. LATE THEOFILLIS FRANCIS GONASALVES, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S. 1A. MS. DANIELLE D/O. THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: II FLOOR, DHUN MAHAL, GARDEN ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI, TQ AND DIST: MUMBAI, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 1B. MRS. GISELLE GONSALVES, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: 455 FLOOR, APACHE COURT, UNIT 140, MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO, LAZ3W8, CANADA. 1C. MR. NYALL THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: NO.3091, DOYLE STREET MISSISSAUGE, ONTARIO, LAZ2W8, CANADA. 1D. MR. NIGEL THEOPHILIS GONSALVES, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: 3091, DOYLE STREET MISSISSAUGE, ONTARIO, LAZ3W8, CANADA. …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. S. S. PATIL & SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. RENUKA W/O. PARASHURAM GURAV, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S ARE R2, R4 AND R5 ALREADY ON RECORD. 2. SHRI. PARASHURAM S/O. LAXMAN GURAV, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 R/O: KATAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 302. 3. SHRI. VILAS S/O. LAXMAN GURAV, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KATAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 302. 4. SHRI. PRATAP PARASHURAM GURAV, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KATAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 302. 5. SHRI. SUNIL S/O. PARASHURAM GURAV, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KATAGALI VILLAGE, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 302. 6. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. LAXMAN GURAV. SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S ARE R2 AND R3 ALREADY ON RECORD. 7. JUDE DE SOUZA S/O. EDGAR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: DHUN MALHAL, GARDEN ROAD, COLOBA, MUMBAI – 400 039. REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. JOSEPH DE SOUZA S/O. EDGAR DE SOUZA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOUSE NO.E-166, NEAR HOLY, SPIRIL CHURCH, MARGAO GOA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5; NOTICE TO R7 IS SERVED) THIS RSA CROB IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CROSS OBJECTION SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NO.172/2006 BY THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE SR. DN, BELAGAVI, AT KHANAPUR AND DISMISS THE SUIT BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.06.2006 PASSED IN - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 O.S.NO.33/2006 BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KHANAPUR AND ETC., THESE APPEAL AND RSA CROB, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is against the judgement and decree dated 31.10.2006 passed in RA no.172/2006 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belagavi at Khanapur (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’), by which the First Appellate Court setting aside the judgement and decree dated 19.06.2006 passed in OS No.33/2006 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur (for short, ‘Trial Court’), decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff within three months. 2. The present appeal is filed upon permission granted by this Court by order dated 09.10.2007, by one - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 Smt. Renuka Parashuram Gurav and others, who are not parties to the suit. 3. At the outset it is also necessary to note that the appellants herein are claiming their locus standi and interest in the matter on the premise that the suit lands are a tenanted lands governed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act, 1961’) and that they have filed application in Form No.7A under Section 77A of the Act, 1961 seeking grant of subject lands in their favour. That the Assistant Commissioner, Belagavi after enquiry by order dated 11.12.2002 had indeed granted the said lands in favour of the appellants which were however subject matter of a challenge in the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘Tribunal’), in Appeal No.516/2003. Thereafter, filed a writ petition in WP No.5682/2006, which was allowed setting aside the grant by the Assistant Commissioner and the order passed by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded. That upon such remand, by order dated 01.10.2016 the Assistant Commissioner had rejected the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 application of the appellants herein filed under Form No.7A and that appeals were filed against the said order before the Tribunal in Appeal Nos.926, 927 and 928 of 2016. That by order dated 31.01.2018, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and has remanded the matter. As against which the matter was carried before this Court by filing writ petition in WP Nos.103219/2018 and 103774/2018 which were disposed off on 18.01.2023 confirming the order of the Tribunal in remanding the matter for fresh consideration. 4. That it is submitted that the matter is still pending consideration before the Assistant Commissioner, which aspect of the matter goes to the root of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit for specific performance. 5. The above suit in OS No.33/2006 is filed by the original plaintiff namely Mr. Jude De Souza against the original defendant namely Mrs. Syanora Gonsalve seeking relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.05.1998 contending inter alia that; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 (a) that the suit property consisting of agriculture lands bearing Sy.Nos.20 and 23 measuring 14 acres 39 guntas and 11 acres 2 guntas respectively belonged to the ownership of one Theofillis Francis Gonsalves-the husband of the original defendant. (b) That the said Theofillis Francis Gonsavles had entered into an agreement of sale dated 31.12.1970 with one Joseph Wilfred De Souza agreeing to sell the suit property for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-. That on payment of entire sale consideration Joseph Wilfred De Souza was put in possession by the said Theofillis Francis Gonsalves. (c) That the said Theofillis Francis Gonsalves passed away in the year 1974 leaving behind his wife the original defendant. Thereafter, another agreement of sale deed dated 10.05.1998 was executed in continuation of the earlier agreement of sale dated 31.12.1970. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 (d) That Mr Joseph Wilfred De Souza also passed away on 11.01.1999 leaving behind the plaintiff - Jude De Souza as his nearest legal heir. Joseph Wilfred De Souza was bachelor and had executed a Will bequeathing all his properties in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff thus being the legal heir of said Joseph Wilfred De Souza was entitled to get the deed of sale executed in terms of the agreement dated 10.05.1998. (e) That he found that the said agreement of sale in the papers kept in almirah of Joseph Wilfred De Souza. That on going through the said agreement, plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the sale deed on many occasions which was protracted on plaintiff. That learning about the efforts made by the defendant to alienate the property, he was constrained to file the suit for specific performance. Hence, the suit. 6. The notice that was issued to the defendant through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due had - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 purportedly returned with postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’. As such, defendant was placed exparte by the Trial Court. 7. The Trial Court based on the plaint averments framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the husband of the defendant has executed agreement of sale on 31-12-1970 with respect to the suit property and received entire sale consideration amount and put Joseph Wilfred De Souza in possession of the suit properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has executed another agreement of sale on 10-5-1998 in continuation of the earlier agreement of sale dated 31-12-1970? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the defendant failed to perform her part of contract inspite of repeated demands by the plaintiff? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. What order or decree? 8. On appreciation of the material placed on record by the plaintiff, the Trial Court answered the said points in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff – Mr. Jude De Souza - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 preferred regular appeal in RA No.172/2006. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the evidence produced by the plaintiff, which was not challenged and unrebutted goes to prove the case of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the agreement and that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 3. What order? 9. On re-appreciation of the matter answered the point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and consequently, decreed the suit setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court as noted above. 10. It is under these circumstances, the appellants who claim to be the tenants of the suit lands having filed an application under Form No.7A of the Act, 1961 have approached this Court seeking permission to prosecute the appeal which has been accorded vide order dated 09.10.2007 by this Court as already noted herein above. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 11. The present appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 11.04.2008 to consider the following substantial question of law: “1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in granting the relief of specific performance without going into the question whether the plaintiff was in possession when he claimed possession under the agreement of sale of 1970? 12. This Court vide order dated 25.02.2014 admitted the Cross Objection to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the First Appellate Court has committed serious error in allowing the appeal and consequently decreeing the suit by dispensing with notice to sole defendant on the ground that he has been placed exparte in the trial Court?” 13. Sri. B. S. Kamate, learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submitted that the First Appellate Court grossly erred in not issuing the notice to the defendant merely on the premise of defendant was placed exparte before the Trial Court. Referring to the cause title of the impugned judgement in RA No.172/2006, learned - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 counsel points out that the notice to the defendant has been dispensed with. He submits that such a procedure is unknown to law. He further submits that the suit lands are the tenanted lands, original plaintiff is seeking to enforce an agreement dated 10.05.1998 which was purportedly entered into between the original defendant who was the wife of one Theofillis Francis Gonsalves and the plaintiff who himself claims to be the legatee of one Joseph Wilfred De Souza. That in the absence of original plaintiff producing and proving the execution of alleged agreement of sale dated 31.10.1970, the First Appellate Court ought not to have proceeded to presume the genuineness or otherwise the said agreement and decreed the suit as sought for. 14. He further submits that though the First Appellate Court has taken note of principle of law governing disposal of the suits exparte, the First Appellate Court has lost over its sight over the inconsistencies in the case of the plaintiff running contrary to the settled position of law. He submits that in any case the suit land being - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 subject matter of claim by the appellants of their tenancy rights pending consideration before the Tribunal, the question that is also required to be considered is; whether the agreement of sale which was executed on 31.12.1970 and another agreement of sale deed dated 10.05.1998 were enforceable? 15. He also points out that the original plaintiff himself was a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner which factor has not been brought on record and since the defendant had no opportunity to represent the case either before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court these facts have not been brought on record. He submits apart from the substantial question of law which is already framed by this Court, the issue with regard to very maintainability of the suit also has to be gone into. Therefore, he submits that in the fitness of things, matter be remanded to the First Appellate Court with a direction to provide opportunity to the parties and to dispose the matter afresh. Hence, seeks for allowing the appeal. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 16. Sri. Mahantesh R. Patil, learned counsel for the defendant in RSA Crob No.52/2010 submits that the First Appellate Court grossly erred in dispensing the service of notice to the defendant. That the First appellate Court being the final Court of facts ought to have ensured proper and effective service of notice on the defendant. 17. He further submits that paragraph No.3 of the impugned judgement read in the light of the cause title of the said judgment and order would indicate that the First Appellate Court has not even ordered issuance of notice to the defendant, thereby, depriving the valuable statutory rights of the defendant going to the root of the matter. He further submits that the agreement dated at 10.05.1998 which is sought to be enforced by the plaintiff itself is a fabricated and forged document. The signatures appearing on the said document are not that of the defendant. The stamp paper appears to have been purchased on 03.06.1997 whereas, the date of alleged agreement is purported to have been executed on 10.05.1998. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 18. He submits that in terms of the provisions of Section 52B of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 if a stamp paper is not utilised within a period of six months the same becomes invalid and ineffective which aspect of the matter has also not been taken note of by the First Appellate Court. He submits that an opportunity of defending the case be provided to the defendant in the circumstances, hence, he supplements to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants for reminding the matter. 19. Heard and perused the records. 20. Original plaintiff has filed the suit claiming to be the legatee of one Joseph Wilfred De Souza. Facts narrated above would indicate that said Joseph Wilfred De Souza himself was a purported agreement holder allegedly having been entered into an agreement of sale dated 31.12.1970 with one Theofillis Francis Gonsalves, who was the husband of the original defendant. Admittedly, the said agreement dated 31.12.1970 has not been brought on record either before the Trial Court or before the First - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 Appellate Court. The Trial Court dismissed the suit only for the reason that the said agreement has not been brought on record and the terms of the said agreement have not been proved. 21. The First Appellate Court however, dispensed with the requirement of production of the said agreement dated 31.12.1970 in the light of the subsequent purported agreement dated 10.05.1998, which according to the First Appellate Court has remained unchallenged. The First Appellate Court accordingly proceeded to decree the suit as sought for. 22. The focal point raised in this appeal by the appellants and the cross objectors is with regard to the First Appellate Court dispensing with issuance of notice to the defendant merely because he was placed exparte by the Trial Court. 23. It is appropriate at this juncture to note the Rule 14 of Order XLI of CPC with the Karnataka amendment to the said provision which reads as under: - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 “Provided that the Appellate Court may dispense with service of notice on respondents, against whom the suit has proceeded exparte in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred.” 24. Thus, Order XLI Rule 14 of CPC and the Karnataka Amendment Act as noted above provides for the First Appellate Court to dispense with the notice on the respondent who has remained absent against whom the suit has proceeded exparte in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred or who has been declared absent by the said Court. 25. Learned counsel for the appellants at this juncture points out assuming the First Appellate Court has invoked the said provision, the same is inappropriate inasmuch as, the plaintiff himself in the paint had pleaded about he not being aware of the correct address of the defendant. He points out to paragraph No.3 of the plaint wherein the plaintiff has pleaded as under: “The plaintiff tried his level best to find out the defendant’s address, but he could not trace her address. Even the plaintiff came to - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 Katgali and tried to find out her address, but nobody was knowing her in Katgali village.” 26. The address of the defendant shown in the cause title of the suit is as under: Mrs. Syanora Gonsalves W/o. Late Theofillis Francis Gonsalves, Age: Major, Occ: Household work, Dhun Mahal, Colaba, Mumbai-400039. 27. The present address of the defendant is provided in the Cross Objection along with the application filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the cross objection which is as under: Syanora W/o. Theofillis Francis Gonsalves Age:76 years, Occ:Household, Dhun Mahal, 2nd Floor, Garden Road, Coloba, Mumbai. 28. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the cross objector neither the Trial Court nor the First Appellate Court have made any attempt to ascertain whether the plaintiff had furnished proper and correct address of the defendant before the Trial Court proceedings to place the defendant - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 exparte and before the First Appellate Court proceedings to dispensed with very issuance of a notice in exercise of its power purportedly under Rule 14 Order XLI of CPC. Thus, the very order placing the defendant exparte before the Trial Court and the order dispensing the notice to the defendant by the First Appellate Court is erroneous. 29. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the appeal and the Cross objection deserve to be allowed and the substantial question of law raised in the Cross objection is required to be answered in the affirmative. Thus, the First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by dispensing notice to the defendant. 30. As regards substantial question of law framed in the appeal, the First Appellate Court without ascertaining the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale dated 31.10.1970 and without proof of execution ought not to have decreed the suit particularly when the agreement dated 10.05.1998 is allegedly executed by the wife of - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 Theofillis Francis Gonsalves who was the vendor in the agreement dated 31.10.1970 in favour of the plaintiff who claims to be the legatee of one Joseph Wilfred De Souza who was the purchaser under the said agreement dated 31.10.1970. The First Appellate Court without the said agreement dated 31.10.1970 be made available on record ought not to have accepted its authenticity / genuineness in decreeing the suit. 31. Nevertheless, since this Court has answered the substantial question of law framed in the Cross objection in the affirmative, the appellants in RSA No.2369/2007 and the defendant may have to be given an opportunity of contesting the matter. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) Appeal in RSA No. 2369/2007 and RSA Crob No.52/2010 are allowed. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 ii) The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are set aside. iii) The Matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. iv) The plaintiff shall implead the appellants herein as party defendants. Liberty is also reserved to the appellants herein to seek their impleadment in the suit. v) The Trial Court shall permit the defendant and the appellants herein to file their written statements and after issuance of notice to the plaintiff and ensuring prompt service and after affording opportunity to the parties as noted above, shall dispose off the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8317 RSA No. 2369 of 2007 C/W RSA.CROB No. 52 of 2010 vi) Needless to state, since the appellants and defendant are prosecuting the claim for occupancy rights under the provision of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 before the Assistant Commissioner, the outcome of the suit would be subject to the result of the said proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. vii) All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1