Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9926 (KAR)

SANGAPPA AND ORS v. REDDY SHEKHARAPPA AND ORS

RSA/200282/2018 · 2025-03-25

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101 OF 2006 (INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200282 OF 2018 IN R.S.A.NO.101 OF 2006 BETWEEN: MALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1. BASAWARAJ S/O MALLAPPA KUMARI AGE: 56 YEARS, R/O: RAMALU BUILDING, MANJUNATH TALKIES, NEAR SUKALPETH ROAD, SINDHANOOR, RAICHUR. 2. SANGANNA S/O MALLAPPA KUMARI AGE: 53 YEARS, R/O: NARAKALADINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 3. DYAMANNA S/O MALLAPPA KUMARI AGE: 50YEARS, R/O: NARAKALADINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDERS OF THE HON’BLE COURT DATED 17.03.2010 Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 4. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA KUMARI AGE: 39 YEARS, R/O: NARAKALADINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 5. SHASHIKALA W/O ADARSH JALIBANDI AGE: 46 YEARS, R/O: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 6. MANJULA W/O MALLAYYA KARI AGE: 44 YEARS, R/O: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 7. SAROJA W/O HANAMANTH GUGEBAL AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI G.G.CHAGASHETTI AND SMT REKHA PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: SHEKARAPPA S/O LATE SANGAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1.(a) SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O SHEKHRAPPA AGE: 74 YEARS, R/O: VILLAGE NARKLADINI POST NAVALI, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAIHCUR. 1.(b) NAGARAJ VIDE ORDER DATED 05.11.2024 DECEASED RESPONDENT LRS. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 S/O SHEKHRAPPA SINCE DECEASED, 1(A), 1(C) TO 1(F) ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED 1(B) 1.(c) BASAVARAJ S/O SHEKHRAPPA AGE: 48 YEARS, R/O: VILLAGE NARKLADINNI, POST: NAVALI, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 1.(d) MALLIKARJUN S/O SHEKHRAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O: VILLAGE NARKLADINNI, POST: NAVALI, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 1.(e) SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O YENKANAGOUDA AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O: VILLAGE RAMPUR, POST: NAVALI, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 1.(f) SMT. SAASWATI W/O MAHANTESH HUNKUNTI AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O: VILLAGE JAMBALDINNI, POST: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV., FOR R1(A), R1(C) TO R1(F); V/O DATED 13.02.2025 VAKALATH IN R/O LRS OF R1(B) IS WITHDRAWN) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.09.2005 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 DISTRICT JUDGE (FRC-III RAICHUR IN R.A.NO.64/2005 SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE O.S.NO.35/97 OF THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), LINGASUGUR DATED 23.06.2004 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF TRIAL COURT WITH COST AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN R.S.A.NO.200282 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SANGAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKALDINN VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 2. MAHADEVAPPA S/O BASSAPPA KAMARI AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKALDINN VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 3. AMARESH S/O MAHADEVAPPA KAMARI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKALDINN VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI G.G.CHAGASHETTI AND SMT REKHA PATIL, ADVOCATES) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 AND: REDDY SHEKHARAPPA S/O SANGAPPA SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. 1. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O SHEKHARAPPA AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NARAKLADINI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAIHCUR – 584 122. NAGARAJ S/O SHEKHARAPPA SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS. 2. AKASH S/O LATE NAGARAJ AGE: 17 YEARS, MINOR, 3. DIVYA S/O LATE NAGARK AGE: 14 YEARS, MINOR BOTH THE MINORS THORUGH THEIR UNCLE, BASAWARAJ W/O REDDY SHEKHARAPPA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKLADINI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAIHCUR – 584 122. 4. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O YENKANAGOUDA AGE: 41 YEARS, R/O: RAMPUR VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 102. 5. MALLIKARJUN S/O SHEKHARAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKLADINI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAIHCUR – 584 122. 6. BASAWARAJ S/O SHEKHARAPPA AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKLADINI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAIHCUR – 584 122. 7. SARASWATI W/O MAHANTESH AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JAMBALADINNI VILLAGE TQ: HUNAGUNDA DIST: BAGALKOT – 584 711. 8. JAYAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA KAMAREDDY AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NARAKLADINI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAIHCUR – 584 122. 9. GADEMMA W/O SANGAPP ANADIHAL AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKALDINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 102. 9a. DYAMANNA W/O SANGAPP ANADIHAL AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 9b. HANUMAPPA S/O SANGAPP ANADIHAL AGE: 53 YEARS, CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.06.2023 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 OCC: AGRICULTURE, BOTH ARE R/O: NARAKALDINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 102. 10. KESARAMMA W/O MALLAPPA AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKALDINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 102. 11. BASAVARAJ S/O MALLAPPA AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKALDINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 102. 12. DYAMANNA S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKALDINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 102. 13. SHASHIKALA W/O ADEPPA AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKALDINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 102. 14. MANJULA W/O LATE MALAYYA AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANWARI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 102. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 15. SAROJA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKALDINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 102. 16. VIJAYKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NARAKALDINNI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV., FOR R1, R4, R5, R7 & R11) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL CALL FOR THE RECORDS SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR IN R.A.NO.35/2015 DATED 06.04.2018 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT LINGASUGUR IN O.S.NO.242/2006 (OLD O.S.NO.199/2001) DATED 30.07.2015, THEREBY DECREE THE SUIT FILED BY THE APPELLANTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) RSA No.101/2006 is arising from the divergent finding in a suit for injunction. 2. Respondents in this appeal filed O.S. No.35/1997 for permanent injunction in respect of property bearing Sy No.234/1 and claimed injunction in respect of 4 acres out of total 8 acres 3 guntas. 3. The defendant who is the appellant in this appeal resisted the suit. 4. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 20.04.1990. Though, the said sale deed is in respect of Sy No.233/1, the plaintiff contended that the survey number is wrongly mentioned in the sale deed as Sy No.233/1 and contended that the property purchased is Sy No.234/1. 5. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence has concluded that the plaintiff has failed to establish his - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 possession over the property bearing Sy No.234/1 to the extent of 4 acres and dismissed the suit. 6. While dismissing the suit, the Trial Court has relied on the orders passed by the Tahsildar as well as the Assistant Commissioner, wherein, the Assistant Commissioner has held that Sy No.233/1 which is referred to in the sale deed dated 20.04.1990 is in fact Sy No.234/1. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the plaintiff in O.S. No.35/1997 filed an appeal in R.A. No.64/2005. The appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the defendant in O.S No.35/1997 is before this Court. 8. This Court on 02.04.2007 has admitted the appeal to consider the following substantiate question of law: “Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 the Trial Court solely on the ground that the defendant’s suit for declaration of title is pending in the other Court and that the vendor of the defendant has denied the execution of sale deed in his favour.” 9. RSA No.200282/2018 is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for declaration and injunction wherein the defendant in O.S. No.35/1997, filed a suit in O.S.No.242/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Lingasugur (Old No.O.S.No.199/2001). The plaintiff in the said suit in O.S.No.242/2006 sought a declaration and ownership in respect of Sy. No.233/2 Hissa 1 measuring 4 acres as per the Record of Right entries for the year 1983 to 1996 and Sy.No.234/1 as per the changed entry in terms of the order in RRT/16/96-97 dated 07.11.1996. 10. From the contentions raised by both parties, it is apparent that both parties are claiming right and possession over the same property. 11. In the said suit in O.S.No.242/2006, the plaintiff who is the appellant herein claimed right over the suit property based on the registered sale deed dated - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 20.04.1990. The appellant claims that, he purchased the property from one Jayappa. According to the appellant, Jayappa purchased the property under the sale deed dated 22.08.1983 said to have been executed by Sangappa. 12. The defendant in the said suit in O.S.No.242/2006 contested the suit denying execution of sale deed by Sangappa in favour of Jayappa and further contended that the appellant if at all has purchased any property, the said property in Sy.No.233/1 and not any part of Sy.No.234. 13. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court in R.A.No.35/2015 has dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeals. 14. After considering the submissions made at the bar, this second appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal on the premise that R.A.No.64/05 is already decided against the appellant in the said appeal?” - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 15. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents, both appeals are taken up for consideration. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants’ suit for declaration and injunction which is a comprehensive suit based on the sale deed dated 20.04.1990 is erroneously dismissed by the Trial Court on the premise that the original sale deed is not produced and suit is time barred. The First Appellate Court, without considering the valid contentions raised relating to the limitation and non-production of the original sale deed has decided the appeal only on the premise that R.A.No.64/2005 is decided against the appellants, as such, the appellants are not entitled to seek relief claimed in the appeal. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would contend that the suit in O.S.No.35/1997 though erroneously dismissed is rightly decreed in terms of the decree in R.A.No.64/2005 where the respondent’s - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 possession is clearly upheld and as such, the appellants are not entitled to seek any relief. 18. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 19. As can be seen from the judgment in R.A.No.64/2005, it is evident that the First Appellate Court has not decided the title of the appellant in the said appeal. The appellant in R.A.No.64/2005 had filed O.S.No.35/1997 only for the relief of injunction. The Court has only held that the plaintiff in O.S.No.35/1997 has established his possession over the suit property and the First Appellate Court held that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit based on the observations made by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner. This Court does not find much fault with the said observations. However, what is required to be noticed is when the appellants filed the First Appeal in R.A.No.35/2015, the Appellate Court has not considered the first Appeal on merits and has proceeded to decide the appeal by relying on the findings in R.A.No.64/2005. It is relevant to mention here that - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 RSA No.101/2006 is the appeal pending before this Court where the judgment in R.A. No.64/2005 is assailed. 20. Thus, the admitted factual position is R.A.No.35/2015 is not decided with reference to the evidence led before the Trial Court. R.A.No.64/2005, being the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the First Appellate Court was required to consider the evidence on record. The finding in R.A.No.64/2005, could not have been the basis for the First Appellate Court to hold that the appellant in R.A. No.64/2005 is not the owner of the suit property. The claim of the appellant with reference to the alleged sale deed and the alleged change of records is not adjudicated at all. 21. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and decree in both the appeals have to be set-aside and the matters have to be remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 22. It is also noticed that R.A.No.64/2005 is filed before the Additional District Judge, Raichur and R.A.No.35/2015 is filed before the Second Additional District Judge, Raichur. Hence, both the appeals have to be heard together and accordingly, the matters are remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 23. At the same time, it is relevant to mention that in RSA No.101/2006, the respondent had the benefit of decree for injunction in his favour. It is stated that operation of the decree was not stayed and it is also further stated that the property records as of now stand in the name of respondent insofar as Sy.No.234/1 is concerned. 24. Under these circumstances, this Court passes the following: ORDER (i) Both the appeals are allowed-in-part. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 (ii) The judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005 in R.A. No.64/2005 on the file of Additional District Judge at Raichur are set aside. (iii) The judgment and decree dated 06.04.2018 in R.A.No.35/2015 on the file of II Additional District Judge at Raichur are set aside. (iv) Both appeals R.A.No.64/2005 and R.A. No.35/2015 are remitted to the Court of Principal District Judge at Raichur for disposal in accordance with law. (v) The respondent in RSA No.101/2006 who had the benefit of decree of injunction in his favour, and as the operation of the decree was not stayed and the property records as of now stand in the name of the said respondent in so far as Sy.No.234/1, shall have benefit of temporary injunction order in his favour till the disposal of the appeal by the First Appellate Court. (vi) It is further made clear that the findings relating to temporary injunction should not come in the way of the First Appellate Court deciding the appeal on merits as the observations relating to temporary - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1933 RSA No. 101 of 2006 C/W RSA No. 200282 of 2018 injunction should not be construed as expression on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. (vii) All contentions of the parties are kept open. (viii) Both appeals be heard together and decided by a common judgment. (ix) All records shall be sent to the First Appellate Court. (x) The entries in the property records shall continue till the disposal of the case before the First Appellate Court. (xi) The parties shall appear before the First Appellate Court on 04.06.2025 without any further notice from the First Appellate Court. (xii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45