Karnataka High Court
Basappa S/O Malakappa Natikar @ ... vs Ladma D/O Gulab Nadaf Ors on 13 December, 2021
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
RSA No.7405/2010
BETWEEN:
BASAPPA S/O
MALAKAPPA NATIKAR @ HOLER
AGE : 53 YEARS OCC: SERVICE
BANGALORE
... APPELANT
(BY SRI D P AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. LADMA D/O GULAB NADAF
AGE: 22 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
2 . BISMILLA D/O GULAB NADAF
AGE 19 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
3 . KHUDANALLI S/O GULAB NADAF
AGE 18 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
4 . HASAINBI W/O GULAB NADAF
AGE 62 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
5 . REVAPPAGOUDA S/O MALAKANGOUD PATIL
AGE 67 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
2
6 . MAHAMADSAB S/O IMAMSA NADAF
AGE 52 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
7 . SHANTABAI W/O NINGAPPA BIRADAR
AGE 57 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
8 . SHANKARAPPA S/O NINGAPPA BIRADAR
AGE 62 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
9 . NIRMALABAI W/O REVAPPAGOUDA PATIL
AGE 63 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
10 . AMEENAWWA W/O SIDRAMA HARIJAN
@ NATIKAR
AGE 67 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
11 . HASANAWWA W/O SHIVAPPA HARIJAN
@ NATIKAR AGE 62 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
12 . CHANDRAWWA @ BAGAWWA
W/O RAMAPPA HOLER @ NATIKAR
AGE 57 YEARS OCC: H. H. WORK
ALL ARE R/O KORAHALLI
SINDAGI TALUK BIJAPUR DISTRICT
RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R9 & R12 SERVED, APPEAL STANDS ABATES
AGAINST R10 & R11)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD- 12.07.2010
PASSED IN R.A. NO. 31/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
DIST. JUDGE AT BIJAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD-
22.01.2008 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 221/2007 ON THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C. AT SINDAGI.
3
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
The present Regular Second Appeal is filed by the
appellant/plaintiff No.5 being aggrieved by the judgment
and decree dated 12/07/2010 passed in R.A.No.31/2008
on the file of the Principal District Judge at Bijapur (for
short 'the First Appellate Court) which confirmed the
judgment and decree dated 22/01/2008 passed in
OS.No.221/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge Senior
Division, Sindagi (for short 'the Trial Court').
herein who were the plaintiffs before the trial court filed
suit for declaration of their ownership in respect of suit
lands bearing Sy.Nos.156/1A, 156/1B, 156/2, 156/3, 151,
161/1+2A and 160/1+2B of Korahalli village Sindagi taluk
and for possession of the same from the defendants on the
premise that the said lands are ancestral properties of the
plaintiffs. That one Vittu S/o Saheba Natikar who owned
Sy.Nos.156, 151 and 160/1 had died on 24/09/1953
leaving behind him his son Malakappa to inherit all the
suit properties. The said Malakappa died on 21/05/1951
leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his legal
representatives. The suit properties though granted by the
Government to the ancestors of propositus Vittu the said
Malakappa had given the lands measuring 24 acres 30
gutnas in Sy.No.156 to one Inamsa Nadaf and
Revannasiddappa and Sy.No.151 to Malakanagouda Patil
and Sy.No.161 to Ningappa Channappa Harijan for
cultivation of corn share basis. That the plaintiffs were
receiving the corns on half share basis till 1999 from the
defendants. Thereafter, the defendants refused. When
the plaintiffs verified the records it was found defendants
and their ancestors had played fraud and created false
documents in respect of suit properties in their names.
Plaintiffs learnt that there were certain sale deeds based
on which mutation entries were made and same were not
binding in them. Hence, sought for declaration and
possession by filing the above suit.
3. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7 filed written
statement contending that on 14/10/1964 plaintiff No.2
sold land in Survey No.156 in favour of one Putalabai. In
turn the said Putalabai sold 4 acres 15 guntas in favour of
defendant No.1 in 1968 which portion was numbered as
156/2A. Thereafter, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and their mother
had filed suit in OS.No.75/1969 for partition and separate
possession in respect of land in Sy.No.156/2B, 156/2A,,
156/1A, 156/1B and 160/1 and house property bearing
VPC No.199 and prayed for cancellation of sale deeds. The
said suit was decreed and Putalabai had preferred
RA.No.182/1972 during the pendency of the said appeal
parties compromised the suit and as per the terms of the
compromise plaintiff No.5 and his mother Dyavamma
admitted that sale of 156/1 as per the sale deed executed
by plaintiff No.2 in favour of Putalabai on 14.10.1964 and
the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of 4
acres 15 guntas in terms of sale deed dated 24.10.1968
was binding on them. Further the decree of the lower
court was set aside. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right in
lands bearing RS.Nos.156/A and 156/1B. So far as
Sy.No.156/1A defendant No.1 purchased 4 acre 15 guntas
from plaintiff No.2 during 1968 as such the plaintiff had no
right over the said land. Out of remaining 8 acres in
RS.No.156/2B plaintiff No.2, 5 and their mother
Dyavamma had sold 5 acres on the southern side to the
defendant No.2 under sale deed dated 14.09.1972 and put
defendant No.2 in possession thereof.
4. Plaintiff No.2, 5 and there mother sold 3 acres
of land in RS.No.156/2 in favour of defendant No.1 under
the sale deed dated 26/05/1975 and put defendant No.1 in
possession thereof. On 20/04/1972 plaintiffs No.2, 5 and
their mother entered into an agreement of sale with
Ningamma in respect of 160/1 measuring 2 acres 17
guntas and thereafter executed sale deed dated
25/07/1972 in favour of Ningappa which is inherited by the
defendant Nos.5 and 6. Land in RS.No.151 was sold by
Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 5 in favour of Revubai under deed of
sale dated 29/10/1975. Thus, the defendants are the
owners in possession of the said property having
purchased under the deeds of sale and the plaintiffs have
right over the same.
5. The Trial Court after framing issues recorded
evidence and based on the evidence taking note of the
aforesaid sale transactions and the compromise entered
into between the parties on earlier occasion in
RA.No.182/1972 which arose from the judgment and
decree dated 30/01/1972 passed in OS.No.75/1969 in
which the plaintiffs had raised similar issues with regard to
their rights over the suit schedule properties and also
questioned the deeds of sale executed in favour of
Putalabai and also taking note of the fact that the plaintiffs
not challenging the sale deeds dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred the Regular
Appeal in RA.No.31/2008 before the First Appellate Court.
6. The First Appellate Court has taken note of the
earlier compromise entered into between the plaintiffs and
Putalabai in RA.182/1972 wherein it was declared that the
sale deed dated 14.10.1964 executed in favour of
Putalabai in respect of Sy.No.156/1 and the sale deed
executed by Putalabai in favour of defendant No.1 on
26.04.1968 to be binding on the plaintiffs and the decree
passed in OS.No.75/1969 was set aside and that the said
decree having become final, rejected the prayer of the
plaintiffs in respect of Sy.No.156/1A and 156/1B.
Referring to the sale deeds dated 26.04.1968 as per
EX.D13 executed by plaintiff No.2 and Sharanabasappa
minor represented by plaintiff No.2 selling 4 acres 15
guntas in Sy.No.156/2A in favour of defendant No.1 held
that the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the same.
Further referring to Ex.D1 deed of sale dated 14.09.1972
wherein plaintiff Nos.2 and 5 and their mother had sold 5
acres in Sy.No.156/2B in favour of defendant No.1 and
Ex.D3 another sale deed dated 26/05/1975 by plaintiff
Nos.2, 5 and their mother conveyed 3 acres in
Sy.No.156/2B in favour of defendant No.1 held that the
plaintiff had no right over the same. Further referring to
the sale deed dated 20/05/1972 by plaintiff Nos.2, 5 and
their mother in favour of Ningappa in respect of
Sy.No.160/1 measuring 2 acre 17 guntas and sale deed
dated 25/07/1972 in respect of 160/2 measuring 3 acres
33 guntas and another sale deed dated 29/10/1975 by
plaintiff No.5 in favour of Revubai Biradar in respect of
Sy.No.151 who had relinquished the said property in
favour of defendant No.5, the First Appellate Court
concluded that the plaintiffs having sold the properties
under the aforesaid transactions failed to establish their
rights. As the decree in Os.N.75/1969 was set aside in
terms of the compromise entered into in RA.No.185/1972
held that the plaintiffs had no right in respect of property
claimed thereunder.
7. Taking note of non challenge to the sale deeds
in respect of Sy.Nos.160/1, 160/2 and 151 and in the
absence of any re-grant of the lands in favour of the
plaintiffs by the Government held that the plaintiffs cannot
seek any benefit under the provisions of Karnataka Village
Officers Abolition Act 1961 and that there was no violation
of Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act.
8. The present suit by the plaintiffs is for
declaration and possession without reference to the sale
transaction effected by them in favour of the defendant as
narrated hereinabove. Therefore, the grounds now urged
in the Regular Second Appeal with regard to the validity or
otherwise of deeds of sale referring to provisions of the
Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and to
the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act as contrary to Section 23 of
the Contract Act 1973 cannot be countenanced. Since the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have appreciated
the facts and circumstances of the case and documents of
conveyance undisputedly executed by the plaintiffs in
favour of the defendants as narrated above between 1964
to 1975 and the same not having been challenged for over
thirty years have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
9. In the circumstances, no substantial question
of law is involved in this appeal requiring consideration.
Hence, the following;
ORDER
i) Appeal in RSA.No.7405/2010 is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and decree dated
12/07/2010 passed in R.A.No.31/2008 on the
file of the Principal District Judge at Bijapur,
which confirmed the judgment and decree
dated 22/01/2008 passed in OS.No.221/2007
on the file of the Civil Judge Senior Division,
Sindagi, is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mkm
