Karnataka High Court
Vishwanath S/O Gurushantappa Patil vs Babu S/O Gaddeppa Harijan And Anr on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1428
RSA No. 200288 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200288 OF 2014
(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
VISHWANATH S/O GURUSHANTAPPA PATIL
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:LINGADALLI, TQ: ALAND,
DIST: GULBARGA-585302
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASAWARAJ NADGOUDA AND
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR.,ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. BABU S/O GADDEPPA HARIJAN
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA AGE 34 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
UDAGI R/O:LINGADALLI, TQ: ALAND,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DIST: GULBARGA-585302
KARNATAKA
2. RAJASHEKHAR S/O GADDEPPA HARIJAN
AGE 27 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:LINGADALLI, TQ: ALAND
DIST: GULBARGA-585302
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADHUCHANDRA M N., ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1428
RSA No. 200288 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.07.2014 PASSED IN R.A NO.49/2007 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE ALAND AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2007 PASSED IN O.S. NO.25/2005
BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, ALAND, WITH
COST THROUGHOUT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGEMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
This second appeal is preferred by the defendant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2014 passed in R.A.No.49/2009 by Senior Civil Judge, Aland [for brevity, 'the First Appellate Court'], which reversed the judgment and order dated 03.10.2007 passed in O.S.No.25/2005 by Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Aland [for brevity, 'the Trial Court'].
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners in possession of land bearing Sy.No.7/2A measuring 3 acres 16 guntas and the well in the said land situated in Lingadalli village [hereinafter mentioned as "the suit well"]. One Peeru Lakshu Harijan and Gadappa-the father of plaintiffs are brothers and in -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1428 RSA No. 200288 of 2014 HC-KAR the year 1960 and an oral partition took place between the said brothers and in the said partition, a land bearing Sy.No.7/2B measuring 3 acres, which is situated on the northern side of the land bearing Sy.No.7/2A, had fallen to the share of Peeru and the land bearing Sy.No.7/2A measuring 3 acres 16 guntas had fallen to the share of the Gaddappa. Subsequently, the said Gaddappa had dug a well in the land fallen to his share. However, the said Peeru had sold his entire land to one Shivalingappa Basappa Tonne under a registered Sale Deed dated 10.02.1972, in which the description of well was not at all mentioned. Nonetheless, the sons of said Shivalingappa Tonne sold 2 acres of land to the present defendant under the registered Sale Deed dated 02.03.1993, conveying illegally, the right of use of the well water, to the extent of 2/3rd of their share to the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant installed pump sets to the suit well and laid pipelines for use of the water. When the plaintiffs requested the defendant to remove his I.P. set from the suit well, the said request was not acceded to. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1428 RSA No. 200288 of 2014 HC-KAR
3. On issuance of suit summons, the defendant filed his written statement specifically denying all the plaint allegations. He contended that it was Peerappa-plaintiff's uncle, who had dug the well in his land and defendant deepened the well and installed I.P. set to the suit well. It was further contended that plaintiffs were residing along with their father at Mumbai and they never came over to their village. According to the defendant, he had obtained electricity connection from GESCOM (KEB) Aland in the year 1993 and installed 3-HP pump set to the well and laid down 1000 ft. pipeline from the well to his land as shown in the hand sketch map annexed to the written statement, as such, the defendant is irrigating his land since 1996.
4. It is further contended that in respect of the land, in which the suit well is situated, hissa-phodi has been made and Form No.10 was prepared, according to which 4 guntas of land is shown separately, in which, the suit well was shown being commonly used by both defendant and plaintiffs. He also mentioned that the mother of the plaintiffs had signed on hissa-phodi proceedings. He contended that in the year 1993 -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1428 RSA No. 200288 of 2014 HC-KAR the silt from the well has been removed at the common expenses by plaintiffs and defendant and prior to the filing of suit, once again the silt from the well has been removed, at the joint expenses by the plaintiffs and defendant. The defendant has also contended that Putalabai who is the mother of the plaintiffs was necessary party to the suit and further, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is hit by the Principle of estoppel.
5. The Trial Court, after examining the evidences and materials on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and the First Appellate Court, on appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and thereby decreed the suit. The defendant being aggrieved by the same preferred this second appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and respondent/plaintiff.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the First Appellate Court have grossly erred while passing the judgment by decreeing the suit without appreciating the evidences and documents on record in a right -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1428 RSA No. 200288 of 2014 HC-KAR perspective. According to him, plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence to establish their title over suit well. He specifically contended that, the first appellate Court has failed to appreciate the defendant's contention that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable as they have not challenged the Sale Deed dated 02.03.1993, according to which, defendant has got right over the suit well. He further contended that the First Appellate Court failed to consider that the defendant is using the suit well by installing 3 H.P pump sets and obtained electricity connection from GESCOM since from the date of Sale Deed without obstruction from anybody. In such circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and accordingly prays to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the First Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit. He submitted that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant is null and void as the vendors in the alleged deed had no right, title and interest over the suit well, hence, a transfer by a person without title generally creates no valid -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1428 RSA No. 200288 of 2014 HC-KAR ownership to the buyer. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal preferred by the defendants.
9. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law:
i. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the decree of the Trial Court in spite of mentioning of right to take water from well in Ex.P.18 - Sale Deed and failed to consider Ex.D.5 - document issued by GESCOM, Aland?
ii. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in not considering the principles of estoppel or acquiescence and reversing the decree of the Trial Court?
10. Heard the learned counsel appellant-defendant and respondents-plaintiffs and perused the materials on record.
11. As could be gathered from records, the plaintiffs have not produced any satisfactory documentary evidence to substantiate the fact that they are the owners in possession of suit well. Further, the recital of Ex.P19 discloses that vendors of defendant transferred right of suit well water to the extent of 2/3rd out of half share in the well to the defendant. Even Ex.P17
- record of right produced by the plaintiffs in respect of land -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1428 RSA No. 200288 of 2014 HC-KAR bearing Sy.No.7/2A measuring 3 acres 16 guntas discloses that the defendant has got his share in the well. PW.1 in his cross- examination has stated that the defendant has installed the I.P. set to the suit well by obtaining electricity supply from GESCOM. PW.2 has also stated in his cross-examination that defendant has installed I.P. set to the suit well and laid down 1000 ft. pipeline from the suit well. Ex.D5 - certificate issued by GESCOM discloses that defendant has got electricity connection to I.P. set since 1994. Thus, it is clear that the defendant has been using the suit well since the date of Sale Deed i.e., 1993, which has not been challenged by the plaintiffs. Further, the evidence of DWs.1 to 5 discloses that the defendant is legally in use and enjoyment of suit well by installing 3-HP IP set to the suit well.
12. On perusal of the entire evidence on record the plaintiffs have not placed any satisfactory evidence to establish that the suit well was dug by the father of plaintiff-Gaddappa after partition between himself and Peeru. Moreover, the plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence to establish that they are the owners in possession of the suit well -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1428 RSA No. 200288 of 2014 HC-KAR as contended by them. The plaintiffs have totally relied on Ex.P4 i.e., Records of Right pertaining to land bearing 7/2A measuring 3 acres 16 guntas to establish their title. However, Ex.P4 clearly discloses in other rights column the word "well" is appearing. Nevertheless, the documents placed by the defendant Ex.P19 and Exs.D1, 2, and 5 to 7 clearly depict the existence of the suit well and sharing of the water between the plaintiffs and defendant. As discussed supra, Ex.D5 also clearly reveals that the defendant has installed pump set as well as GESCOM connection to the pump set that the plaintiffs and defendant were sharing water from the well ever since 1994. No doubt in the Sale Deed of 1972, there is no mention of well, however, ever since the execution of 1993 Sale Deed and subsequent documents clearly established the right of defendant in the well. Thus, the substantial questions of law framed are answered accordingly. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1428 RSA No. 200288 of 2014 HC-KAR ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated 24.07.2014 passed in R.A.No.49/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Aland, is set aside.
iii. The judgment and decree dated 03.10.2007 passed in O.S.No.25/2005 by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Aland is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT-BH