- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13668 RSA No. 100367 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100367 OF 2016 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. VEERABHADRAGOUDA S/O. DODDAVEERAPPAGOUDA BASANAGOUDRA, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NITUVALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. 2. VEERANAGOUDA @ ERANAGOUDA S/O. DODDAVEERAPPAGOUDA BASANAGOUDRA, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NITUVALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GADIGEPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA BANNIKOD, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NITUVALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. 2. NAGAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA BANNIKOD, AGE: 53 YEARS, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.10 10:02:02 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13668 RSA No. 100367 of 2016 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NITUVALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. 3. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA BANNIKODI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NITUVALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. 4. SHIVAMMA W/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA GURUBASAPPALAVAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HATTI-ALUR, TQ: DAVANAGERE, DIST: DAVANAGERE – 577 601. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RANEBENNUR IN R.A.NO.102/2014 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND 1ST ADDITIONAL JMFC, RANEBENNUR IN O.S.NO.44/2013, AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13668 RSA No. 100367 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The present appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.44/2013 against dismissal of their suit and the first appeal in R.A.No.102/2014. 3. The contention of the appellants/plaintiffs is that they filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants on the ground that though the final decree proceedings in FDP No.13/2007 had come to a culmination, the defendants had not taken the possession of the property by filing an execution petition in furtherance of the final decree. Both the Courts below have rejected the said contention saying that in pursuance to the final decree, the revenue mutations have taken place and the possession had been parted to the defendants in respect of the property now claimed by the appellants. Obviously, no substantial question of law arises in the matter. The fact as determined by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court regarding the possession, which is the bone of contention in this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13668 RSA No. 100367 of 2016 second appeal has been finally decided. There being concurrent findings by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the said aspect on facts cannot be gone into in the second appeal. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merits and as such, dismissed with costs of ₹5,000/-. 4. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE YAN CT:ASC LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38