Karnataka High Court
Smt.Laxmibai And Anr vs Ramappa And Ors on 8 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1391
RSA No. 200230 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200230 OF 2020 (POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.LAXMIBAI,
W/O SHANTAPPA DESAI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC:H.H.WORK,
R/O VIVEKANANDA COLONY,
BAGALKOTE ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
2. SHANTAPPA
S/O BASAGOUDAPPA DESAI
@ HUCHREDDY,
AGED 65 YEARS,
OCC:TEACHER,
R/O: S.P.HIGH SCHOOL,
Digitally signed TERDAL, TQ:JAMAKHANDI,
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH DIST:BAGALKOTE-587315.
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAMAPPA
S/O RAGHAPPA KALASAREDDY
SINCE DECEASED
1. SMT.RENUKA CLAIMING HERSELF AS
W/O RAMAPPA KALASAREDDY,
AGED 55 YEARS,
OCC:H.H.WORK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1391
RSA No. 200230 of 2020
R/O VIVEKANAND COLONY,
BAGALKOTE ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
DADAMATTI VILLAGE,
POST: SARAWAD,
TQ:BABALESHWAR,
DIST:VIJAYAPUR-586113.
2. ROOPU S/O PANDU RATHOD,
AGED 51 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE,
R/O HORTI, TQ:INDI,
DIST:VIJAYAPUR-586117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE BOTH
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2020 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED 3RD ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR, IN
R.A.NO.64/2018 AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE JUDGEMENT AND
DECREE DATED 26.09.2018, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR IN O.S.NO.371/2010.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the defendants/
appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated
01.10.2020 in R.A. No.64/2018 on the file of III Additional
Senior Civil Judge and Addl. JMFC, Vijaypur (for short 'First
Appellate Court'), confirming the judgment and decree
dated 26.09.2018 in O.S. No.371/2010 on the file of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1391
Principal Civil Judge at Vijaypur (for short 'Trial Court'),
decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiffs are
the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased
the same by registered sale-deed dated 17.12.1975. The
plaintiff No.1 is the husband of plaintiff No.2. Defendant
No.2 is husband of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is
daughter of plaintiff No.1's brother - Thimappa. It is the
case of plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 was appointed as
Teacher in School at Vijaypur and as such, the plaintiffs, at
the request made by the defendants, allowed the
defendants to occupy the suit schedule property without
any rent or licence and the defendants, promised the
plaintiffs that they will vacate the suit schedule property at
the instance of the plaintiffs request.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1391
It is further stated in the plaint that there is rift in
the relationship between the parties, pursuant to the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.272/1996 and
O.S.No.287/1996 and thereafter, the defendants refused
to vacate the schedule property and as such the plaintiffs
filed O.S.No.371/2010 on the file of Trial Court seeking
relief of possession in respect of suit schedule property.
4. On service of notice, defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement, denying
the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of
the defendants that the father of defendant No.1 and the
plaintiff No.1 had jointly purchased the schedule property
and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial
Court framed the issues for its consideration.
6. In order to substantiate their case, plaintiffs
have examined thee witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and got
marked 14 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-14. The defendant
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1391
No.1 was examined as DW.1 and produced seven
documents as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7.
7. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 26.09.2018,
decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and as such directed the
defendants to vacate the suit schedule property. Feeling
aggrieved by the same the defendants have filed R.A.
No.64/2018 before the First Appellate Court and the
appeal was resisted by the plaintiffs.
8. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating
the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated
01.10.2020, dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by
the same the defendants have filed this Regular Second
Appeal.
9. I have heard Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri S.S.Mamadapur,
learned counsel appearing for respondents.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1391
10. Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel appearing for
the appellants contended that, the finding recorded by
both the Courts below is incorrect as PW.1 in her cross-
examination admitted that the property in question is a
joint family property of plaintiff No.1 and Timmappa
(father of the defendant No.1). Therefore, he contended
that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the
courts below requires to be interfered with.
11. Per contra, Sri S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel
appearing for respondents sought to justify the judgment
and decree passed by the Courts below.
12. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful
examination of the record shows that the suit schedule
property was purchased by plaintiff No.1 on 17.12.1975.
Thereafter, he has constructed the building during the
year 1985 and therefore the finding recorded by both the
Courts below would indicate that there is no perversity in
the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1391
respect of the ownership of the plaintiff No.1. Perusal of
the finding recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the
First Appellate Court at paragraphs 23 and 24 that as
DW.1 admitted that Ramappa had purchased the suit
property in the year 1965 and was working as a Teacher
and on other hand the defendants have not produced any
document to show that father of defendant No.1 -
Timmappa has made contribution towards acquiring the
property by the plaintiffs, I am of the view that no
interference is called for in this appeal at the stage of
admission itself. It is also to be noted that the appellants
have not made out a case to frame substantial questions
of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure.
In the result, appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
