- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8352 RSA No. 101423 of 2022 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.101423 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. BASAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA LALGATTI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE. 2. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA LALGATTI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 3. RAMESH S/O. BHEEMAPPA LALGATTI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 4. RAVI S/O. MAHESHAPPA HADIMANI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. ALL ARE R/O: SALKINKOPPA, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRANAV BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA LALGATTI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. ARJUN S/O. NINGAPPA LALGATTI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 3. SHIVAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA LALGATTI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. ALL ARE R/O: SALKINKOPPA, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.64/2021, DATED 19.03.2022, BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.405/2013, DATED 12.02.2021, BY II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II COURT, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC., Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8352 RSA No. 101423 of 2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. The present appeal is filed by the defendants No.1 to 4 in O.S.No.405/2013, being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 12.02.2021 passed in the said suit by the II-Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Dharwad, which decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondents and granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment in the suit scheduled property, which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2022 passed in R.A. No.64/2021 on the file of III-Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad. 2. The case of the plaintiff/respondents is that the suit scheduled property is a house property bearing No.103, measuring 69 feet x 48 feet, with a house measuring 46 feet towards North to South and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8352 RSA No. 101423 of 2022 24 feet towards East to West, situated at Salakinkoppa village in Dharwad Taluk. 3. The said property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff viz., Ningappa Bhimappa Lalagatti. He had executed a registered gift deed dated 18.11.2006, conveying the said property in favour of the plaintiffs. Ever since then, the plaintiffs have been in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the children of one Bhimappa, who was elder brother of the plaintiff’s father. Defendant No.4 is the son of plaintiff’s sister. The defendants, without having any share or right in the said property, at the instigation of persons with vested interests and in collusion with an intention to dispossess the plaintiffs from their peaceful possession of the suit property, started to interfere and threatened the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8352 RSA No. 101423 of 2022 5. The defendants filed written statement disputing the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit scheduled property is joint family property belonging to both the plaintiffs the defendants and there was no partition of the suit scheduled property. Since the father of the plaintiff and the father of the defendants were brothers, the defendants claim entitlement to a half share in the suit property. It is further contended that the father of the plaintiff did not execute the gift deed dated 18.11.2006, as claimed by the plaintiffs and he could not have executed such a gift deed, as the property in question is joint family property. Hence, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit. 6. The Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issue for its consideration: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that, defendants are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for? 3. What order or decree? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8352 RSA No. 101423 of 2022 ADDITIONAL ISSUE Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 7. Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited four documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 and exhibited the six documents, marked as Exs.D1 to D6. 8. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court answered issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative. The additional issue was also answered in the affirmative and consequently, decreed the suit. 9. The Trial Court restrained the defendants by way of a permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property. 10. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred a Regular Appeal in R.A.No.64/2021. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8352 RSA No. 101423 of 2022 11. Upon considering the grounds urged in the appeal, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration: POINTS: 1. Whether the appellants prove that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment in suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are illegally interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property? 3. Whether the appellants prove that the trail court judgment is capricious, contrary to law, hence, interference of this court is necessary to set aside the same? 4. What order? 12. The First Appellate Court, upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the decree passed by the Trial Court. 13. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the defendants are before this Court in this regular second appeal. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, taking this Court through the judgment and decree passed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8352 RSA No. 101423 of 2022 by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. At the outset submitted that the suit schedule property being ancestral joint family property, the father of the plaintiff could not have executed the gift deed, as the same is neither valid nor binding on the share of the defendants. He submits that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, despite the defendants having brought on record the material evidence to demonstrate that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and that there was no partition, grossly erred in decreeing the suit as prayed for. He contends that the findings of the Courts below give rise any substantial question of law, warranting interference by this Court. 15. Heard. Perused the records. 16. The plaintiffs, who claim that the suit schedule property belonged to their father and that he had executed a deed of gift in their favour, produced four documents marked as Exs.P1 to P4. Ex.P2 is the registered deed of gift dated 18.11.2006. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8352 RSA No. 101423 of 2022 17. On the other hand, in support of their contention, that the suit property is joint family property, the defendants did not produce any documentary evidence, except Exs.D1 to D6. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have appreciated the contents of the said documents. Ex.D1 is the order passed by the Taluka Panchayat in Appeal No.67/2007-08, by which names of the plaintiffs were directed to be entered in the revenue records. However, the said order does not in any manner indicate that the defendants having any right, title or interest over the suit property or the suit property being the joint family property. 18. Ex.D4 is the order sheet in O.S.No.291/2015, Ex.D5 is the plaint in the said suit and Ex.D6 is the memo filed by plaintiffs therein. The Trial Court taking note of the contents of the said documents has found that the said suit was in respect of certain land in item No.1 bearing Sy.No.95, measuring 5 acres 35 guntas situated at - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8352 RSA No. 101423 of 2022 Alnavar, Item No.2 pertaining to Sy/Block No.73/A measuring, 1 acre 24 guntas situated Alnavar, Item No.3 pertaining to land in Sy.No.78/2 measuring 2 acres situated Salakinkoppa village. Thus the suit property is not subject matter of the said suit. 19. Taking into consideration of the defendants not producing any evidence in justification of their contention of the suit property is joint family property, the Trial Court found the said plea without any merits. The documents produced by defendants did not even remotely suggest/support their claim. Accordingly, the Trial Court rejected the said contention, upholding the contention of the plaintiff’s and granted the relief of permanent injunction. 20. The First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, affirmed the findings and conclusions of the Trial Court. Since both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after careful consideration of the material evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the suit - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8352 RSA No. 101423 of 2022 scheduled property was the absolute property of the plaintiff’s father and the same did not form part of the joint family property, as claimed by the defendants, in the absence of any perversity in the said concurrent findings, this Court, in the Second Appeal, finds no reason to interfere with the judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 21. The appeal lacks merit and does not involve any substantial question of law warranting consideration. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RHR/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39