- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:508 RSA No. 100820 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100820 OF 2014 (-) BETWEEN: 1. KAMADHENU MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP WOMEN’S SOCIETY LTD., (REGD), KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD, RPTD.BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEEPA W/O DAYANANDA MURKUMBI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORK, R/O. AKKI ONI, KALAGHATAGI-581204 DIST: DHARWAD …APPELLANT (BY SMT.VINUTA M KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KALGHATAGI TALUK AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., KALGHATAGI-581204 DIST: DHARWAD, RPTD.BY ITS PRESIDENT 2. THE MANAGER THE KALGHATAGI TALUK AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., KALGHATAGI-581204, DIST: DHARWAD …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.S.KORISHETTAR, ADVOCATE) V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.16 12:37:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:508 RSA No. 100820 of 2014 THIS RSA IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.10.2014 IN R.A.NO.26/2007 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARWAD, ITINERARY COURT, KALAGHATAGI AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2007 IN O.S.NO.80/2005 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT KALAGHATAGI AND DECREE THE SUIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2014 in R.A.No.26/2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge Itenerary Court at Kalaghatagi1, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2007 in O.S.No.80/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kalaghatagi2 dismissing the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:508 RSA No. 100820 of 2014 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had taken lease of the schedule property from the defendant - Society as per the Lease Deed dated 31.10.1991. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property even after the period of ten years as specified in the lease deed. It is also stated in the plaint that, the lease premise was in bad condition and as such the plaintiff got repaired by investing huge amount. It is also stated in the plaint that, as the plaintiff is running tailoring classes, rationing and kerosene sale unit to achieve its object and as the plaintiff is regularly paying rent to the defendant and as such the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.80/2005 before the Trial Court seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. 4. On service of notice, defendants entered appearance and contended that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of Section 118 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959. It is also stated in the written statement that defendant No.1 has leased the suit - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:508 RSA No. 100820 of 2014 schedule property to the plaintiff as per lease deed dated 31.10.1991 and the lease period is completed and as such the defendants denied the claim made by the plaintiff. 5. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff examined one witness as PW.1 and has produced marked 57 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.57. The defendant was examined as DW.1 and has not produced any documents before the Trial Court. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 21.02.2007, dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.26/2007 on the file of the First Appellate Court. The appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 18.10.2014 dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.80/2005. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:508 RSA No. 100820 of 2014 7. I have heard Mrs.Vinuta M Khannur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.S.Korishettar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Mrs.Vinuta M Khannur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit is maintainable before the Trial Court and touches the management and constitution of the society and defendants never asked for possession of the suit schedule premises and the plaintiff is continuing in possession of the schedule property and accordingly she sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, Mr.K.S.Korishettar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, it is not in dispute that defendant No.1 has leased out - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:508 RSA No. 100820 of 2014 schedule premises to the plaintiff for a period of ten years as per lease deed dated 31.10.1991 (Ex.P.5). Since the lease period is for ten years, by efflux of time the said lease agreement has come to an end. In that view of the matter, taking consideration of the finding recorded by the Trial Court on issue Nos.1 and 2, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this appeal as the period of ten years has been completed by efflux of time and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to continue in the schedule premises, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the owner of the schedule property – respondent No.1. 11. Accordingly, the appellant has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24