- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5283 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. AKKAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA SIDDAPPANAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KARJAGI, TQ: HAVERI DIST: HAVERI-581112. 2. RAMAPPA S/O. HANMANTAPPA SIDDAPPANAVAR, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KARJAGI, TQ: HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581112. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. YELLAVVA D/O. GUDDAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KARJAGI, TQ:HAVERI, DIST:HAVERI-581112. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2009, PASSED IN R.A.NO.104/2005, ON THE FILE OF THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) HAVERI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2005, PASSED IN O.S.NO.61/2001, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC, HAVERI DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF INJUNCTION. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.09.18 10:54:38 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Appellants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Jr.Dn. and JMFC, Haveri (for short, ‘the trial Court’) in O.S.No.61/2001, which is confirmed by the Judgment and Decree dated 21.02.2009 passed in R.A.no.104/2005 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haveri (for short, ‘the first appellate Court’). 2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Mandal Panchayat, Karjagi had granted suit property to the plaintiff on 26.01.1991 and had delivered actual possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also constructed tiled house spending huge money. Defendants No.1 and 2, colluding with members of the Mandal Panchayat, Karjagi, have got their names entered in respect of the suit property behind the back of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 plaintiff. They are obstructing plaintiff's peaceful possession of suit property. Therefore, plaintiff has filed the suit. 4. Defendants No.1 and 2 have appeared and filed their written statement. They have denied all the averments made in the plaint as false. Further, it is stated in their written statement that plaintiff has not constructed any house in the open site within two years from the date of grant by the Gram Panchayat, Karjagi. Then the Gram Panchayat, Karjagi has granted the open site to the defendant no.1. Afterwards the Gram Panchayat, Karjagi has entered the name of defendant no.2 after deleting the name of defendant no.1 in property register on 16.11.2001. The defendants, by putting katcha hut are residing in the said property continuously, peacefully, openly with knowledge of the plaintiff and without obstructing anybody till this day. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit property. The Government of Karnataka was pleased to grant amount to the defendants to construct the house in the suit property and accordingly the defendants have constructed a house in the suit property. After constructing the house in the suit property, the word ‘house’ is mentioned in the property extract. After - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 conducting local inspection of the suit property and after perusing the necessary records of the defendants, the Taluka Panchayat, Haveri has recognized the defendant as a ‘Phalanubhavi’ under the ‘Ashraya Yojana’. The plaintiff is not the permanent resident of Karjagi village and he is permanent resident of Mantagani village. The object and policy of the Government is to allot the house only to the family and not to the un-married person and the plaintiff was unmarried at the time of granting of the open site to her. 5. It is further stated in the written statement that the plaintiff has not obstructed to the construction of the house by the defendants. The plaintiff has obstructed the defendants after completion of the house with malice intention to give harassment to the defendants with oblique motive to cause wrongful gain at the instance of well-wishers of the defendant. Every year Taluka Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat conduct the programme of Jama- bandhi. If any injustice caused to any of the party, that party has to approach the Taluka Panchayat or Zilla Panchayat for rectification of the injustice. The plaintiff has not approached and participated in the ‘Jamabandhi’ programme conducted by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 Taluka Panchayat and hence this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff. On all these grounds it was sought for dismissal of the suit with costs. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues : (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is owner in lawful possession of the suit property, as on the date of the suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants colluding with Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Karjagi have got entered the name of defendant No.1 and subsequently the name of defendant No.2 to the records of the suit property, illegally behind the back and without knowledge of her, as contended in para 4 of the pliant? (3) Whether the defendants prove that because the plaintiff has not constructed her house within two years of grant, the suit property has been granted to them? (4) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged obstructions and disturbance by defendants? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 (5) Whether the Court fee paid is proper and sufficient? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaratory and consequential reliefs as prayed for in the plaint? 7. To prove the case of plaintiff, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and one other witness as P.W.2, 11 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.11. On closure of plaintiff’s side evidence, defendants have not led any defence evidence and no documents were marked on their behalf. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, defendants have preferred the regular appeal before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri in R.A.No.104/2005, same came to be dismissed on 21.02.2009. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of both Courts, appellant/defendants have preferred this second appeal. 8. This Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law as per the order dated 04.04.2014: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 “1. Whether both Courts have committed a serious error in ignoring the material evidence placed on record and have further committed error that requisite opportunity was not given to the appellant- defendant to prosecute her case? 2. Whether the judgments and decrees of the first appellate Court and the trial Court have become perverse and illegal for the reasons stated in substantial question of law no.1?” 9. On 24.10.2010, the appellants’ counsel has filed application under Order-XLI Rule 27 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC along with affidavit and documents. In view of this application, the following additional substantial questions of law are framed : (3) Whether appellants have made out grounds to allow application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC? (4) What order or decree? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 10. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that both Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The plaintiff has failed to construct the house within two years in the suit property as per Ex.P.1-’Hakku Patrike’. Therefore, the Panchayat authorities have passed a resolution and allotted the site to the defendants in the year 2001. The Executive Engineer, Taluka Panchayat has released the sanctioned amount of Rs.20,000/- for construction of the house in the name of Sri Ramappa Hanamantappa Siddappanavar, the present appellant No.2. On 27.06.2000, the Gram Panchayat authorities have granted licence to construct the house. The Gram Panchayat Secretary has issued a Domicile Certificate that plaintiff is not the resident of Karjagi, but he is the resident of Kalsuru village. On all these grounds sought for allowing of this appeal. 11. Despite service of notice, the respondent remained absent and un-represented. 12. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 13. To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.1-Hakku Patrike, which shows that plaintiff was allotted suit property by the Mandal Panchayat, Karjagi. In Ex.P.6 to P.9 names of the plaintiff and one Nagawwa D/o.Fakeerappa Karellappanavar were deleted and names of defendants were entered. On what basis, names of defendants were entered in those documents has not been shown by the concerned panchayat authorities. Defendants have not adduced any defence evidence before the trial Court. The proposed documents produced by appellants reveal that the panchayat authorities have passed the resolution and allotted the site in favour of defendants. Once the ‘Hakku Patrike’ has been issued by the panchayat authorities in favour of the plaintiff, the panchayat authorities have no right to cancel this ‘Hakku Patrike’ unilaterally. Therefore, the proposed resolution passed by the panchayat authority has no legal sanctity to consider the defence taken by defendants. Hence, these proposed documents produced by the defendants by filing application under Order-XLI Rule-27 of CPC will not come to the aid of defendants to discard the oral and documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 14. The order sheet pertaining to O.S.No.61/2001 reveals that sufficient opportunity was provided to defendants to adduce their defence evidence. Even before the first appellate Court, appellants have not filed any application under Order-XLI Rule- 27 of CPC to adduce their defence evidence. Only at the time of filing of this second appeal, the present application is filed under Order-XLI Rule-27 of CPC. Even the affidavit which is supported to the application, has not disclosed the reasons for non- production of these documents before the trial Court. As already observed the proposed documents produced by defendants are not required to adjudicate the matter in dispute. 15. Both Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. I do not find any error, illegality and infirmity in the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by both Courts. Hence, I answer substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 in the ‘affirmative’. 16. Appellants have not made out a ground to allow I.A. filed under Order-XLI Rule-27 of CPC. Accordingly, I answer additional substantial questions of law in the ‘negative’. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11662 RSA No. 5283 of 2010 17. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed. (ii) Draw decree accordingly. (iii) Registry to send the copy of this Judgment along with TCR to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 70