Karnataka High Court
Abdul Razak Mulla vs Smt Jainabee And Anr on 9 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1411
RSA NO.200254 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200254 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
ABDUL RAZAK MULLA
S/O BANDGISAB MULLA
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: PVT. WORK AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O GHATTARGI VILLAGE,
AFZALPUR TALUK,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT.
NOW R/AT WARD NO.16-18,
KALE LAYOUT,
BIJAPUR ROAD, INDI,
BIJAPUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
(BY SMT. REKHA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
by SACHIN SRI. I.R. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SMT. JAINABEE
W/O HUSSAINSAB MANIYAR
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GHATTARGI VILLAGE,
AFZALPUR TALUK,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT - 585 102.
2. SHABHIR
S/O HUSSAINSAB MANIYAR
AGE: 65 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1411
RSA NO.200254 OF 2021
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GHATTARGI VILLAGE,
AFZALPUR TALUK,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT- 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23RD SEPTEMBER,
2020 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.113 OF 2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KALABURAGI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13TH
SEPTEMBER, 2017 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.9 OF
2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
AFZALPUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the
judgment and decree dated 23rd September, 2020 passed
in Regular Appeal No.113 of 2017 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Kalaburagi (for short, hereinafter
referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the
appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 13th
September, 2017 passed in Original Suit No.9 of 2015 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Afzalpur (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit
filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1411
RSA NO.200254 OF 2021
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaint averments are that, the plaintiff has
stated that the land in question is the ancestral property of
the plaintiff as his father Bandgisab Mulla and his uncle
Muktumsab Mulla are the Inamdhars of the property in
question and on their demise the plaintiff has inherited the
property. Since, the defendants claim the suit schedule
property and as such, the plaintiff has filed suit in Original
Suit No.9 of 2015 before the Trial Court, seeking relief of
partition and separate possession in respect of the suit
schedule property.
4. After service of summons, defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement disputing
the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants.
It is the specific case of the defendants that the land in
question was granted to the Khasimsab (father of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1411
RSA NO.200254 OF 2021
defendants) by the Land Tribunal and as such, denied the
averments made in the plaint.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial
Court has formulated issues for its consideration:
6. In order to establish the case, the plaintiff has
examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked
20 documents as Exhibits P1 to P20. On the other hand,
defendants have examined 3 witnesses as DW1 to DW3
and produced 31 documents as Exhibits D1 to D31.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the material
on record, by its judgment and decree dated 13th
September, 2017, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by
the same, the plaintiff has preferred Regular Appeal
No.113 of 2017 on the file of First Appellate Court and the
said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First
Appellate, Court after re-appreciating the facts on record,
by its judgment and decree dated 23rd September, 2020,
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.9 of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1411
RSA NO.200254 OF 2021
2015. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant/plaintiff has
preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of
the Civil Procedure Code.
8. Heard Smt. Rekha Patil, learned counsel on behalf
of Sri. I.R. Biradar, appearing for the appellant/plaintiff.
9. It is the main contention of Smt. Rekha Patil,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff that
the ancestors of the plaintiff are the Inamdars and their
names have been incorporated in the Revenue Records
and the said fact has been overlooked by both the Courts
below. Accordingly, she sought for interference of this
Court.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and on careful examination of the finding
recorded by both the Courts below, the same would
indicate that the plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief of
partition and separate possession. The defendants have
denied the relationship with the plaintiff. That apart, the
defendants produced Exhibit-D7, which is the order passed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1411
RSA NO.200254 OF 2021
by the Land Tribunal, granting suit schedule property in
favour of the father of the defendant No.1. In that view of
the matter, both the Courts below were justified in
rejecting the contention raised by the appellant. Hence,
appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
11. Therefore, I do not find material irregularities or
perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the
Courts below and accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal
is liable to be dismissed. Since, the appellant/plaintiff has
not made out grounds for formulation of substantial
question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of
Civil Procedure, appeal is liable to be dismissed at the
stage of Admission itself. Accordingly, Regular Second
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ARK
