Karnataka High Court
Hanamappa S/O Sheshappa Pujari vs Shivanand S/O Gurappa Ningapur on 8 October, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURALIDHARA PAI B
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100484 OF 2018 (SP)
C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100024 OF 2019
IN RFA NO.100484 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
HANAMAPPA S/O. SHESHAPPA PUJARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR's.
1(A). SMT. TULASAWWA
W/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI,
AGED 75 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GOVINADINNI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(B). RAMESH S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
Digitally
signed by AGED 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
VINAYAKA B V
Location: R/O. GOVINADINNI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
HIGH COURT
OF
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH 1(C). SMT. BORAWWA
W/O. DUNDAPPA HOSAKOTI,
AGED 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TIMMAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
1(D). SMT. PANDAWWA
W/O. HAWALEPPA PUJARI,
AGED 54 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
R/O. GOVINADINNI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(E). SMT. PARWATEWWA
W/O. MAHADEVAPPA PRADHANI,
AGED 52 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SULAKOD,
TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203.
1(F). SMT. RUKMAVVA
W/O. MUTTANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GONAL,
TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203.
1(G). SMT. MANJULA
W/O. MELAGIREPPA PUJARI,
AGED 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAMAKERI, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
1(H). BASAVARAJ S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGED 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(I) PUNDALIK S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGED 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(J). SHRISHAIL S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGED 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
1(K). SMT. RENUKA @ RADHA
W/O. MANJUNATH MALLAPUR,
AGED 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KUNDGOL, TQ: KUNDGOL,
DIST: DHARWAD-587113.
1(L). SMT. SHANKRAWWA
W/O. BASAVARAJ YENDIGERI,
AGED 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
...APPELLANTS
(BY DR. B.B.BALLARI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVI N.CHIKKARADDER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVANAND S/O. GURAPPA NINGAPUR
AGED 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ROLLI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
2. ANAND S/O. ANNAPPA KESANUR
AGED 53 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: ROLLI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
BILAGI PATTAN SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,
BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUSWAMY B.HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT. PALLAVI PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRINAND A.PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2018
PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BILAGI,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
IN RFA NO.100024 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
SHIVANAND S/O. GURAPPA NINGAPUR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ROLLI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
HANAMAPPA S/O. SHESHAPPA PUJARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR's.
1(A). SMT. TULASAWWA
W/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GOVINADINNI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(B). RAMESH S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEERABUDIHAL, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(C). SMT. BORAWWA
W/O. DUNDAPPA HOSAKOTI,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TIMMAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
1(D). SMT. PANDAWWA
W/O. HAWALEPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GOVINADINNI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(E). SMT. PARWATEWWA
W/O. MAHADEVAPPA PRADHANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SULAKOD,
TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203.
1(F). SMT. RUKMAWWA
W/O. MUTTANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GONAL,
TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203.
1(G). SMT. MANJULA
W/O. MELAGIREPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAMAKERI, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
1(H). BASAVARAJ S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(I) PUNDALIK S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(J). SHRISHAIL S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
1(K). SMT. RENUKA @ RADHA
W/O. MANJUNATH MALLAPUR,
AGED 49 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KUNDGOL, TQ: KUNDGOL,
DIST: DHARWAD-587113.
1(L). SMT. SHANKRAWWA
W/O. BASAVARAJ YENDIGERI,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
2. ANAND ANNAPPA KESANUR
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: ROLLI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
BILAGI PATTAN SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,
BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY DR. B.B.BALLARI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVI N.CHIKKARADDER,
ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO L);
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. PALLAVI PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE,
SRI. RAJENDRA R.PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2018
PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BILAGI,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURALIDHARA PAI B
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) These two Regular First Appeals in RFA No.100484/2018 and RFA No.100024/2019 arise out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.19/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi. Therefore, these two appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court.
3. The plaintiff Shivanand s/o Gurappa Ningapur has filed a suit in O.S.No.19/2010 seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract dated 01.12.2004, -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR which is a registered agreement of sale whereby defendant No.1 has agreed to sell the two pieces of an immovable properties, namely R.S.No.303 measuring 17 acres 31 guntas and R.S.No.317 measuring 16 acres 5 guntas, both situated at Rolli village of Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought for a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.3-Bank in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of R.S.No.303 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It is needless to mention that initially when the suit was filed, it was filed only against defendant No.1, and with a prayer No.1 regarding specific performance of the contract viz., the registered agreement of sale dated 01.12.2004. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.3- Bank had auctioned the immovable property bearing R.S.No.303 in favour of defendant No.2, and therefore, defendant Nos.2 and 3 were subsequently impleaded in the suit. The second prayer is regarding the auction sale made -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 and the sale deed dated 08.10.2010.
4. The trial court framed the following issues on 23.02.2011, and additional issues were also framed on 17.02.2011 and 09.03.2012.
1. Whether plaintiff prove that defendant agreed to sell the suit scheduled property for a consideration of Rs. 17,00,000/- and paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as earnest money and executed sale agreement on 1/12/2004?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant on 10/2/2005 requested the plaintiff to advance Rs. 6,00,000/- and plaintiff paid the same to the defendant?
3. Whether plaintiff prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of sale agreement?
4. Who will be put to more hardship, if suit for specific performance is decreed or not?
5. Whether defendant prove the plaintiff forcible and concealing true facts created bogus agreement in the year 2004, stating that it is required for security of liability incurred by defendant by receiving loan from Pattan Sahakari Bank, Bilagi in the year 1998?
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR
6. Whether defendant prove that Pattan Sahakari Bank already auctioned suit property on 4/7/2007 and therefore, suit is not maintainable?
7. Whether defendant prove suit of plaintiff is time barred?
8. Whether defendant prove that plaintiff not valued the suit properly and Court fee paid on plaint is not proper and correct?
9. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
10. What order or decree?
Additional issues:
1) Whether the defendant No.3 proves that the suit is not maintainable as against defendant No.3?
2) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit is hit by the provisions of Section 15 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act?
5. The trial court after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that both the suit schedule properties are Inam lands. It was observed that D.W.2 (Defendant No.1) has admitted during his cross- examination that he has filed an application before the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR concerned authority around 10-12 years ago to convert the suit land into 'Raitwari' land, however, even after conversion of the suit land as 'Raitwari', the plaintiff did not take any initiative or steps to get the sale deed registered in his favour. The trial court, therefore, held that no prudent person will keep quiet after conversion of the land into 'Raitwari' land to get the sale deed executed in his favour. The trial court therefore, proceeded to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of the contract, however, the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- from defendant No.1 at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of execution of the agreement of sale till the date of realization.
6. Defendant No.1 filed RFA No.100484/2018, being aggrieved of a portion of the judgment where defendant No.1 was directed to refund the earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. On the other hand, the plaintiff has filed RFA
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR No.100024/2019 assailing the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
7. Learned counsel Dr.B.B.Ballari appearing for defendant No.1 submitted that the rate of interest of 12% p.a. granted by the trial court is excessive, and therefore, the learned counsel would pray that the same should be reduced to 6% p.a. The learned counsel has also contended that the suit is time barred, having regard to the admitted facts that the agreement was entered into on 01.12.2004 and the legal notice was got issued by the plaintiff only on 29.07.2010. It is pointed out that defendant No.1 has admitted during the course of his cross-examination that the suit schedule properties were converted as 'Raitwari' land about 10-12 years prior to the filing of the suit, and therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that it is mentioned in the agreement of sale that defendant No.1 will convert the suit schedule property into 'Raitwari' land and thereafter sale deed will be executed in favour of the plaintiff was rightly found as incorrect by the trial court.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR
8. Learned counsel Sri.S.B.Hebballi appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the trial court has committed a blunder in coming to a conclusion that both the suit schedule properties are Inam lands. The attention of this court is drawn to Ex.D45, which contains two documents. The first document in Ex.D45 is the order of confirmation of sale passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Recovery Officer. The second document is the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi dated 16.09.2010, which should have been marked separately. It is pointed out that R.S.No.303 was the subject matter of the proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). It is pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner has noticed the orders passed by the Land Tribunal on 15.09.1980 in the proceedings bearing No.KLR/D/SR/314, where defendant No.1 was conferred with the occupancy rights while re-granting 17 acres 31 guntas in R.S.No.303. Accordingly, Form No.11 was issued
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR in favour of defendant No.2 on 20.08.1986. The Assistant Commissioner therefore proceeded to hold that defendant No.2 herein has fulfilled all the conditions including the fact that he has continued to be in possession and cultivation of the land from the date of re-grant and he has not disposed of the property. Accordingly, an order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 16.09.2010 in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act, granting permission to defendant No.2 for alienation, in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would therefore submit that the learned Senior Civil Judge has proceeded on a wrong premise that both the items of the suit schedule properties are the Inam lands. The finding of the trial court may hold good insofar as R.S.No.303 is concerned, but the same does not hold good insofar as R.S.No.317 is concerned, and no specific finding is given by the trial court insofar as R.S.No.317 is concerned, as to why it should not be considered for grant of specific performance of the contract, as prayed for by the plaintiff. The learned counsel has pointed out to one
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR sentence in the impugned judgment where the learned Senior Civil Judge has held that, having regard to the hardship that would be faced by defendant No.1, the prayer made by the plaintiff for the specific performance in respect of both the items of the properties is declined. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would therefore submit that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the trial court insofar as the prayer made by the plaintiff for the specific performance of the contract insofar as R.S.No.317 is concerned, and not in respect of R.S.No.303. The learned counsel would also add that the trial court should be directed to consider the contention of the plaintiff that out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-, Rs.16,00,000/- have already been paid to defendant No.1 and the same is now to be considered in respect of R.S.No.317 is concerned.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel for defendant No.1 would submit that the trial court has rightly came to the conclusion that there is no material placed by the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR plaintiff before the court regarding payment of Rs.6,00,000/- by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 under the agreement in question.
10. Learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, appearing for defendant No.2 would submit that this court should take note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant No.1 insofar as R.S.No.303 is concerned, since the auction sale made by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 on 14.07.2010 has been confirmed at the hands of the competent authority and the trial court has clearly held that the said property is not available for further consideration in favour of the plaintiff, and even if the matter is remanded for reconsideration, R.S.No.303 should not be the subject matter of further proceedings in the suit.
11. Heard the learned counsels for the appellants and the respondents in both the appeals and perused the appeal memos along with the trial court records.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR
12. This court need not go into any other aspects of the matter having regard to the Ex.D45, an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 16.09.2010 where permission is granted in favour of defendant No.1 to transfer the property bearing R.S.No.303 in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act. It is clear from the material available on record that R.S.No.317 was never the subject matter of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal or before the Assistant Commissioner. There is no material on record to show that R.S.No.317 is an Inam land. The Trial court has proceeded on a wrong footing that R.S.No.317 is also an Inam land. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration having regard to the prayer made in the suit for the specific performance of the contract as per the agreement of sale dated 01.12.2004, which contains two items of immovable properties. Having regard to the admitted facts and the material available on record, this court would uphold the decision of the trial court insofar as R.S.No.303 is
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR concerned. The suit property was mortgaged by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and on default, the said property was brought for auction and the same has been sold in favour of defendant No.2. In that view of the matter, it is made clear that, on remand, the trial court shall not take into consideration R.S.No.303, and it is now a property belonging to defendant No.2.
13. The matter stands remanded back to the trial court for reconsideration insofar as R.S.No.317 is concerned.
14. During the course of the proceedings, learned counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out to the document at Ex.D2 that the plaintiff had stood as a guarantor for the loan obtained by defendant No.1 at the hands of defendant No.3 during the year 1998-2001. He has also pointed out to Ex.D3, which is an order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Jamakhandi in proceedings No.JRL/B/DDS-424/2004-05 dated 13.08.2004 that
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR defendant No.1 has cleared the loan, and therefore, all the documents are directed to be released in favour of defendant No.1. Attention of this court is also drawn to Ex.D4, which are the proceedings initiated by defendant No.3 against defendant No.1 and two other persons namely, Sri.Parutappa Malakappa Ugran and Sri.Ningappa Shivappa Sulikeri and not against the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would therefore submit that after the loan obtained by defendant No.1 earlier where the plaintiff had stood as a guarantor was cleared by defendant No.1, and defendant No.1 has once again obtained a loan but, the plaintiff is not a party to the subsequent mortgage at the hands of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3. On the other hand, it is submitted that registered agreement dated 01.12.2004 was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 after the loan was cleared by defendant No.1 and the competent authority had directed to release the documents in favour of defendant No.1. It is therefore contended that the plaintiff was not aware of the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR subsequent mortgage made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3.
15. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed. However, the matter stands remanded back to the trial court to reconsider the suit filed by the plaintiff insofar as one item of the suit schedule property, namely R.S.No.317 measuring 16 acres 5 guntas, situated at Rolli village of Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District, is concerned, for the relief of specific performance of the contract. In that regard, all contentions are kept open.
16. Any observation made by this court during the course of this judgment shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties.
17. Ordered accordingly.
18. Office is directed to return the court fee, in accordance with law, having regard to the decision of this court to remand the matter back to the trial court.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB RFA No. 100484 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019 HC-KAR
19. Since a portion of the land in R.S.No.317 is said to have been notified for acquisition at the hands of the Upper Krishna Project, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP is permitted to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The directions given by this court regarding disbursement of the compensation shall continue till the suit is reconsidered and disposed of by the trial court.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(MURALIDHARA PAI B) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38