- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100354 OF 2020 (DEC) BETWEEN: SIDDAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HALLUR AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O: HALLUR ONI, KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK-591307, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKAR S/O. BHIMAPPA DOMBAR AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUOJALAGI, NOW AT DODAWAD, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591240. 2. BHIMAPPA S/O. SATAPPA DOMBAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUOJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK-591307. 3. ALLAPPA S/O. SATAPPA DOMBAR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUOJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK-591307. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.02.27 15:52:13 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 4. BALAVVA W/O. ANNAPPA GANACHARI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUOJALAGI, NOW AT AMBIGER, GOKAK-591307. 5. RUKMAVVA D/O. SATAPPA DOMBAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUOJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK-591227. 6. VENKATESH S/O. RAJU DESAI AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O: 14TH EAGLE STREET LAND-FORD ROAD, RICHMAND TOWN, BENGALURU-560025. 7. SMT. ARUNDHITI W/O. BHIMAPPA DESAI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: 14TH EAGLE STREET LAND-FORD ROAD, RICHMAND TOWN, BENGALURU-560025. 8. VED JAKIRIA DESAI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: 14TH EAGLE STREET LAND-FORD ROAD, RICHMAND TOWN, BENGALURU-560025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6, R7 AND R8 SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.378/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2020, passed in O.S.No.378/2016, by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. 2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial court. 3. The appellant was defendant No.4, respondent Nos.1 to 5 were the plaintiffs, and other respondents were the defendants. 4. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, seeking a declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and to declare the sale deed dated 30.07.2016, executed in favour of defendant No.4, is illegal, void ab initio - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for consequential relief of possession. It is contented that one A.B. Desai was the owner of the suit property, and had given the scheduled property for cultivation on crop and rent basis. Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiff No.2 to Plaintiff No.5, named Satappa were cultivating the same from number of years and the name of the plaintiff No.1 and said Satappa was entered in the record of rights of the suit property. 5. It is further contended that before the commencement of Mysore Land Reforms Act/Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the Bombay Tenancy Act was applicable to the Gokak District. It is alleged that the suit land was cultivated by them as tenants and filed Form No.7 after the amendment to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1947. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights and issued Form No.10. The names of the plaintiffs were mutated, and they were in the physical possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 claiming to be the legal representatives of A.B. Desai, entered their names in the record of rights on the basis of the proceedings and no notice was served upon - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 through a sale deed dated 30.07.2016, behind the back of the plaintiffs, and the said sale deed is not binding on them. Hence, prays, to decree the suit. 6. The trial court issued summons to defendant Nos.1 to 3. Despite service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 remained unrepresented, and they were placed exparte. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3, being the owners of the suit schedule property, have sold the same in favour of defendant No.4 and he is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration, and it is contended that the plaintiffs have not valued the suit property and prays, to dismiss the suit. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that they are in physical possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 2. Whether the plaintiffs proves alleged interference by the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiffs proves their right, title and interest over suit property? 4. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that he is a bona-fide purchaser of suit property for valuable consideration? 5. Whether the plaintiffs proves that sale deed dated 30-07-2016 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in respect of suit property infavour of defendant No.4 is illegal, void and not binding on them? 6. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed in the suit? 8. What decree or Order? 8. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1 and marked 33 documents as Exs.P1 to P33 and the plaintiffs examined one witness as PW-2. On the other hand, defendant No.4 was examined as DW1, examined two witnesses as DWs-2 and 3, and got marked 3 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 documents as Exs.D1 to D3. After recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on the assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court answered issue No.1 to 3, 5 and 7 in the affirmative, issue Nos.4 and 6 in the negative. Issue No.8 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with costs. It is declared that, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, and the defendants or anybody claiming under them is restrained from causing obstruction in peaceful possession, use, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction. It is declared that the sale deed of defendant No.4 dated 30.07.2016 in respect of suit schedule property is illegal, void, and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The Defendant No.4 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.378/2016 filed this RFA. 9. Heard learned counsel for defendant No.4 and learned counsel for the plaintiff. 10. Learned counsel for defendant No.4 submits that defendant No.4 had purchased the property in 2016. As on the date of purchasing the suit schedule property, the names - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 of defendant Nos.1 to 3 were appearing in the revenue records. Defendant No.4 after verifying the revenue records purchased the suit schedule property. He is the bonafide purchaser for value. The said aspect was not properly appreciated by the trial Court. Hence, he submits that the impugned judgment is arbitrary and erroneous. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy right in respect of the suit schedule property. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 had no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property as of the date of execution of the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.4. Defendant No.4 had not acquired any title based on the registered sale deed dated 30.07.2016, executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment, and he also submits that the order passed by the Land - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 Tribunal has attained finality, and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have not challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal, and hence, on these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 13. The points that arise for our consideration are as follows: i. Whether defendant No.4 proves that as on the execution of the registered sale deed, defendant Nos.1 to 3 were the owners of the suit schedule property? ii. Whether defendant No.4 proves that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is perverse and arbitrary? iii. What Order? 14. Point No.1:- The plaintiff, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1 and he has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief. To prove that the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 favour of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5, the plaintiffs produced the documents i.e., Ex.P1 the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.59/1, which discloses that Ex.P1 stands in the name of the plaintiffs. Ex.P2 is the RTC extract of land bearing Sy.No.59/1 stands in the name of defendant No.4. Ex.P3 is the order sheet of the Land Tribunal. Ex.P4 is Form No.7, the said Form No.7 was submitted to the Land Tribunal by plaintiff No.1 and the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5. Exs.P5 and P6 are the order sheets of the Land Tribunal. Ex.P7 is the panchanama. It discloses that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land bearing survey No.59/1 measuring 7 acres 22 guntas and Sy.No.91/1 measuring 7 guntas. Ex.P8 is the Form No.10, which discloses that the certificate of registration of a tenancy granted to plaintiff No.1 and the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5. Ex.P9 is the Mutation extract, wherein the mutation was effected in the name of plaintiff No.1 and the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5, in respect of the land bearing survey Nos.59/1 and 91/1. Exs.P10 to P15 are the RTC extracts of land bearing survey Nos.59/1, which discloses - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 that the suit schedule property, from 1964 to 2001, stands in the name of the plaintiffs. Ex.P16 is a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2016, which discloses that defendant No.4 had purchased land bearing survey No.59/1 from defendant Nos.1 to 3. Ex.P17 is the interim order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.05.2016, wherein the occupancy right has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Ex.P18 is the mutation extract, and Ex.P19 is the certified copy of the order sheets of the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, which discloses that defendant Nos.1 to 3, aggrieved by the entries in the names of the plaintiffs, filed before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 11.04.2016 set aside the entries in the name of the plaintiffs and ordered to enter the name of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Ex.P20 is the RTC extract. Ex.P21 in the varadi, Ex.P22 is the check list and Ex.P23 is the certified copy of the order dated 11.04.2016, passed by Assistant Commissioner. Ex.P24 is the Mutation Register, wherein, based on the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the names of the plaintiffs were deleted and the names of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 defendant Nos.1 to 3 were added. Exs.P25 and 26 are the tax paid receipts, Exs.P27 and P28 are the notices, Ex.P29 is the No due certificate, and Ex.P30 is the certified copy of the order sheet of the Land Tribunal. Ex.P31 is the RTC extract, Ex.P32 is the Mutation extract, and Ex.P33 is the order sheet dated 09.05.2019 by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order, wherein the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Ex.P23. Further, plaintiff also examined one Maruti Mallappa Tharakar as PW-2 who has deposed that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and the Land Tribunal, granted the occupancy right in favour of the plaintiffs. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to disbelieve the evidence. 15. On the other hand, defendant No.4 was examined as DW-1, who has deposed that the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by defendant Nos.1 to 3. As of the date of purchase of the suit schedule property, the names of defendant Nos.1 to 3 were reflected in the record - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 of rights. Defendant No.4, after verifying the revenue records, purchased the suit schedule property, and he is the bona fide purchaser. In order to prove his defense, he has produced documents, where, Ex.D1 is the registered sale deed dated 30.07.2016 (Ex.P16). Ex.D3 is the Mutation Register, which discloses that Revenue Authority, based on Ex.D1, entered the defendant No.4 names in the revenue records. Ex.D2 – RTC extract, which discloses that the defendant No.4 is the owner of the suit schedule property. 16. From the perusal of the records, it is clear that plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 submitted Form No.7, in respect of land bearing survey Nos.59/1 and 91/1. The Land Tribunal after holding a due inquiry, passed an order granting occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs. Based on the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the names of the plaintiffs were entered in the revenue records as the owners and possessors. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 being the land lords did not challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The order passed by the Land Tribunal had attained finality. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 entries in the name of the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3. The revenue authorities, pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, deleted the names of the plaintiffs and entered the names of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 taking undue advantage of the entries in the revenue records, sold the said property in favour of defendant No.4 under the registered sale deed as per Ex.D1. As on the date of executing the registered sale deed, defendant Nos.1 to 3 had absolutely no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and to execute a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.4. As observed above, defendant Nos.1 to 3, did not challenge the order passed by the Land Tribunal, granting occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs. The said order has attained finality. The registered sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is invalid and without title. The sale deed executed is illegal and void and not - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 binding upon the plaintiffs. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.1 in the Negative. 17. Point No.2:- It is the case of the plaintiffs, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.59/1 and 91/1 in favour of the plaintiffs, and Form No.10 was issued, and based on the order of the Land Tribunal, the names of the plaintiffs were entered in the revenue record. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the entries in the name of plaintiffs in the record of rights preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the entries in the name of the plaintiffs and ordered to enter the names of defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and ordered to re-enter the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue records. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 had no right to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4. Defendant No.4 had not acquired any title under - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 Ex.D1. Defendant No.4 had not verified the records and purchased the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 did not comply with the requirements of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. Defendant No.4 is not a bonafide purchaser. The trial Court considering the entire records has rightly passed the impugned judgment. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.2 in the Negative. 18. Point No.3:- As we have already answered point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs, accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and decree dated 02.07.2020 in O.S.No.378/2016 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak at Gokak, confirmed. No order as to cost. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2278-DB RFA No. 100354 of 2020 In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2020, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly I.A. No.1/2020 is disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17