- 1 - RSA 100909 OF 2015 Reserved on: 23.09.2025 Pronounced on: 26.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100909 OF 2015 (DEC) BETWEEN: RAJASHEKAR S/O THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF KUDITHINI VILLAGE BALLRI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT PIN 583 101 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUNITA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE) AND: MAHILA VIVIDODDESHA MATTU KAIGARIKA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITA KUDITHINI REP. BY ITS SECRTARY SMT. BHARATHI W/O N.M. SHIVAMURTHY RESIDENT OF KUDITHINI VILLAGE BALLARI TALUK DISTRICT BALLARI 583 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2015 PASSED IN R.A. NO.42/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITOINAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BALLARI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.03.2011 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN OS NO.88 PF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.27 11:58:24 +0530 - 2 - RSA 100909 OF 2015 JUDGE, AT BALLARI DECREING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AAND OWNERSHIP. IN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL ARGUMENTS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA) Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 2011 passed in OS No.88 of 2009, by the I Additional Civil Judge at Bellary (for short “the trial Court”), which is confirmed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Bellary (for short “the first appellate Court”) in Regular Appeal No.42 of 2011 dated 01st September, 2015. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of ownership of the suit schedule property and also for mandatory injunction to demolish the building constructed in the suit schedule property and to deliver the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff-Sangha. It is alleged by the plaintiff that plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and carrying on its - 3 - RSA 100909 OF 2015 activities under the name and style as “Mahila Vividoddhesha Mattu Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Niyamita”, Kudithini (for short hereinafter referred to as “Sangha”). The plaintiff-Sangha is the absolute owner of the property and is having its President and Members. The Government of Karnataka, through Deputy Commissioner, Bellary under its proceedings No.REV/ 32/Grama/Niyama/91-92 dated 22nd January, 1992, granted the vacant site in an extent of 70’ x 50’ to the plaintiff-Sangha and accordingly the Tahsildar, Ballari has issued grant certificate in respect of the vacant space situated in Sy.No.548 of Kudithini village which belonged to government. The suit property is part and parcel of the abovesaid property. The plaintiff, by obtaining financial grant from the Director of Khadi & Gramodyoga Sangha, Bengaluru constructed a building by getting building licence from the Gram Panchayat after approval of the building plan. The Revenue Officials of Gram Panchayat delivered Patta in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-Sangha on 23rd January, 1991. The plaintiff constructed two rooms in the year 1994 and constructed another two rooms in the year 1995-96 by taking permission and license from Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff- Sangha has installed chili-powder machine in one of the rooms - 4 - RSA 100909 OF 2015 by obtaining Electricity Connection from the concerned Department and also conducting tailoring coaching classes for women in another room with materials stored in the said room having assessment No.188869/255a situated in Ward No.7 of Kudithini. The activities of petitioner-Sangha is for the welfare of rural unemployed women and for development of the said Sangha. The plaintiff-Sangha is regularly paying tax of the suit property to the Government which is in dispute measuring 20' x 30' along with rest of the portion of the property allotted to Sangha from the date of its grant. The plaintiff has left vacant place in front of eastern side its building for the purpose of activities of the Sangha and also for getting air and light for the building so also for ingress and egress of Sangha officials and the said vacant space was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff-Sangha. The defendant, being a stranger to the suit property, without having any right, title or interest over the same, had illegally encroached upon the suit property measuring 20’ x 30’ out of total extent of plaintiffs 70’ x 50’ property and put up illegal structure on the suit property and claiming his title over the said disputed property under the guise of so called alleged registered sale deed dated 30th November, 2004, registered vide number BKI/7198/04-05. The - 5 - RSA 100909 OF 2015 plaintiff immediately opposed the illegal act of the defendant when he tried to encroach upon the suit property and lodged complaint to Police. But the police have not taken any action against the defendant and advised the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. Hence, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of ownership over the suit property and to restore the possession of disputed property as also for declaration of sale deed of the defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for the mandatory injunction. 4. Pursuance to summons, defendant appeared through his advocate and filed his written statement contending that the averments of the plaint are false and the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable. It is further contended that there is no cause of action for the suit. It is further contended that the defendant is the absolute owner of the disputed property bearing Ward No.8, Assessment No.3880, measuring 30’ x 20’ situate at Kudithini village which is purchased by him from one Venkataramana through a registered sale deed dated 30th November, 2004 for valuable consideration of Rs.15,000/- and since then he is in actual possession and enjoyment of the disputed property and he has constructed building in the property by getting permission from Grama Panchayat. It is - 6 - RSA 100909 OF 2015 further contended that when the defendant tried to dig foundation in the suit property for construction of building, the plaintiff had objected for the same and therefore defendant filed OS No.307 of 2008 for relief of permanent injunction against plaintiff-Sangha and subsequently the suit was not pressed in view of pendency of the present suit. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and the suit is not maintainable and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed five issues. 5. To prove the case of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 3 and got marked 77 documents as Exhibits P1 to P77. On behalf of defendants, three witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3 and marked fifteen documents as Exhibits D1 to D15. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present appellants have preferred appeal before the first appellate Court which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1st September, 2015. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, the appellant has preferred this appeal. - 7 - RSA 100909 OF 2015 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits the suit of the respondent is not maintainable as the Sangha is nowhere concerned with the suit schedule property and the rights granted to the Sangha or of a different property. He would submit that the appellant purchased the property as per registered sale deed in the year 2004 and khata and other mutation entries are being effected based on the registration of sale deed and, after a period of six years, the respondent- Sangha filed a suit for declaration without explaining the delay which is overlooked by both the Courts below. He would submit that the suit is barred by time and is not maintainable against the plaintiff as the Society has lost its legal entity, because as per the condition mentioned in Exhibit P2, the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari wherein mandatory conditions to be followed by the defendant-Sangha for grant of the land in its favour is to submit the account of activities and the report of the Sangha yearly. But till today the respondent- Sangha has not produced any report which is a legal mandatory procedure to be followed by the society. Respondent-Sangha is not having any of these eligibility is which shall enable it to file a suit. This fact is overlooked by both the Courts. On all these grounds, it was sought for framing substantial question of law. - 8 - RSA 100909 OF 2015 7. I have examined the material placed before this Court. Both the courts have elaborately discussed the oral and documentary evidence placed before it by the parties and based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record, both the Courts have held that the plaintiff-Sangha is the absolute owner of the suit property. Both courts have also observed as to Exhibit D1-Registered original sale deed dated 30th November, 2004 which is produced by the defendant establishing his title over that suit property. Both the courts have held that the defendant has failed to explain as to how the vendor of the property derived title over the suit schedule property. So also, defendant has not produced any document to show that the vendor had valid title to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant. Accordingly, both the courts have rejected the contention taken by the defendant. 8. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant as to non-compliance of the conditions imposed in Exhibit P2 cannot be accepted for the reason that if there is any violation of condition in Exhibit P2, the defendant can approach the concerned authority for cancellation of grant in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendant has not taken any step in - 9 - RSA 100909 OF 2015 this regard. Hence the argument advanced on this ground also cannot be accepted. 9. With regard to point of limitation is concerned, the plaintiff has filed a suit when the defendant has interfered with the peaceful position and enjoyment of the disputed property. Absolutely there are no materials to show that the suit is barred by time. 10. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any error or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by both the courts. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to formulate substantial question of law. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Appeal is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU - 10 - RSA 100909 OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [RAJA SHEKAR S/O THIMMANNA, VS. MAHILA VIVIDODDESHA MATTA] 26.09.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER After the pronouncement of judgment, learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Sunitha P. Kalasoor, filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC, along with a memo of facts. As there are no legal grounds to allow the application, the same is dismissed. This order be read along with the main order. Sd/- ( G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1