- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12845-DB RFA No. 100344 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100344 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SANJAY S/O. SADASHIV SURYAVANSHI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YADUR VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591213. 2. SMT. KRISHNABAI W/O. SANJAY SURYAVANSHI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. YADUR VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591213. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B.S.KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RANJANA W/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS, R/O. YADUR VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591213. 2. SMT. ASHWINI W/O. SACHIN JADHAV AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SANGLI, TQ. AND DIST: SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-416406. SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12845-DB RFA No. 100344 of 2022 3. MISS. SUPRIYA D/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS, R/O. YADUR VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591213. 4. MISS. ANITA D/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. YADUR VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591213. 5. KUM. AKSHAY S/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. YADUR VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591213. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.184/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CHIKODI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12845-DB RFA No. 100344 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 calling in question the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2022 passed in OS No.184/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi1, whereunder, the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been decreed by the Trial Court. 2. The relevant facts are that the defendant No.1 is the brother of the plaintiff; the defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.3 to 6 are the children of the plaintiff. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties were allotted to the share of her husband in the partition amongst the members of her husband's family and her husband's name was entered into the revenue records. Thereafter, since the plaintiff was in judicial custody in a criminal case, taking advantage of the situation the 1 For short, ‘the Trial Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12845-DB RFA No. 100344 of 2022 defendant Nos.1 and 2 fraudulently, mis-utilising certain papers wherein, the signatures of the plaintiff were affixed, created a General Power of Attorney in the name of defendant No.2 and got executed a document styled as a relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 15.12.2010. That the plaintiff after coming to know of the same, filed the suit seeking for suitable reliefs. 4. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 entered appearance before the Trial Court. Defendant Nos.3 and 6 were placed ex-parte. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statements, which was adopted by defendant Nos.4 and 5. In the written statements, the defendants contended that they had spent considerable amount in the criminal proceedings for release of the plaintiff, as also for the marriage of the children of the plaintiff. In the said context, the General Power of Attorney dated 25.06.2003, was executed. Hence, the defendants denied the case put forth by the plaintiff. 5. The Trial Court consequent to the pleadings of the parties, framed seven issues. The plaintiff examined - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12845-DB RFA No. 100344 of 2022 herself as PW1 as also another witness was examined as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P5. The defendants did not cross examine PW1 and PW2, nor led any oral or documentary evidence. The Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 6 in the affirmative and decreed the suit and ordered as under: “The plaintiff’s suit is hereby decreed in part. The plaintiff is hereby declared as joint owner of suit schedule properties along with defendants 3 to 6. The general power of attorney dated 25/06/2003 said to have been executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant-2 is hereby declared as null and void. Further, the relinquishment deed dated 15/12/2020 executed by defendant-2 in favour of defendant-1 is declared as null and void and not binding on plaintiff. All the acts and deeds done by defendant- 2 on the basis of alleged general power of attorney dated 25/06/2003 and the acts and deeds done by defendant-1 on the basis of alleged relinquishment deed 15/12/2010 are - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12845-DB RFA No. 100344 of 2022 hereby declared as not binding on the right of plaintiff over suit schedule properties. By way of permanent injunction, the defendants 1 and 2 are hereby restrained from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over suit schedule properties. No order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.” 6. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2. 7. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 8. Although various contentions have been urged by the defendants on the merits of the matter by contending, inter alia, that having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is erroneous, the primary contention put forth on behalf of the appellants is that, although the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had entered appearance in the suit and filed their written statement, they did not cross examine PW1 and PW2, nor have they led any oral or documentary - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12845-DB RFA No. 100344 of 2022 evidence. In support of the said contentions it is also contended that, the trial of the suit was conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic and hence, the defendants did not have an adequate opportunity to contest the suit of the plaintiff. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, justified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and seeks for dismissal of the above appeal. 10. In view of the submissions made as noticed above, the only point that would arise for consideration is: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal? 11. As noticed above, although various contentions have been urged on the merits of the matter, in view of the admitted position that the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not cross examined PW1 and PW2 as also not adduced oral or documentary evidence, keeping in mind the fact that the trial of the suit was conducted during the Covid-19 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12845-DB RFA No. 100344 of 2022 pandemic, having regard to the fact that valuable rights in immovable property have been adjudicated in the suit, it is just and expedient that the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 be provided with another opportunity to contest the suit of the plaintiff on its merits. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 12. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment and decree dated 05.04.2022 passed in OS No.184/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi, is hereby set aside; (iii) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 29.10.2025 without requirement of any further notice being issued in this regard; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12845-DB RFA No. 100344 of 2022 (iv) The appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall cross examine PW1 and PW2 on the dates fixed by the Trial Court; (v) Consequent to the appearance of the parties, the Trial Court shall conduct further proceedings in accordance with law; (vi) All contentions of the parties on the merits of the matter are kept open; (vii) The Registry to return the records of the Trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SMM / Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26