Karnataka High Court
Dadasaheb Saidusab Ladkhan vs Dastagirsab S/O Kamalsab Talwar on 12 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508
MFA No. 100878 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100878 OF 2018 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
DADASAHEB SAIDUSAB LADKHAN,
AGE:59 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANCHINAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. S. BAWAKHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DASTAGIRSAB S/O. KAMALSAB TALWAR,
AGE:66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BASAVAN GALLI, KILLA,
GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. RAJESAB S/O KAMALSAB TALWAR,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI 2A. HALIMA W/O. RAJESAB TALWAR,
Location: High
Court of AGE:58 YEARS,
Karnataka
OCCUPATION:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O:NEAR NSF COLLEGE BACKSIDE,
TIPPU NAGAR, GOKAK,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2B. MALIK S/O. RAJESAB TALWAR,
AGE:35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS,
R/O:NEAR NSF COLLEGE BACKSIDE,
TIPPU NAGAR, GOKAK,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2C. KUTABU S/O. RAJESAB TALWAR,
AGE:33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS,
R/O:NEAR NSF COLLEGE BACKSIDE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508
MFA No. 100878 of 2018
TIPPU NAGAR, GOKAK,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2D. RIZAWANA W/O. YOUNUS SHINDE,
AGE:37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O:TERDAL CORPORATION PLOT,
NEAR DANAGOND HOSPITAL,
TERDAL, TQ:TERDAL, DIST:VIJAYAPUR.
2E. SHABANA W/O. ARIF TAMBOLE,
AGE:30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O:NEAR NSF COLLEGE BACKSIDE,
TIPPU NAGAR, GOKAK,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
3. HUSENSAB HASANSAB TALWAR
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
3A. MUMTAZ W/O. HUSENSAB TALWAR,
AGE:39 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSE HOLD,
R/O:NEAR MASJID, LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
3B. FAIYAZ S/O. HUSENSAB TALWAR,
AGE:17 YEARS, OCCUPATION:STUDENT,
R/O: NEAR MASJJID, LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
3C. SUMAYYA D/O. HUSENSAB TALWAR,
AGE:15 YEARS, OCCUPATION:STUDENT,
R/O NEAR MASJJID, LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
3D. TASMIYA D/O HUSENSAB TALWAR,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
R/O NEAR MASJJID, LAKKAD GALLI, GOKAK,
TQ GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI
SINCE 3(B) TO 3(D) ARE MINORS.
REP. BY 3 (A) I.E. NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER.
4. ILAS S/O. HUSANSAB TALAWAR,
AGE:36 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508
MFA No. 100878 of 2018
R/O: MAKKALGERI, TQ:GOKAK,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
5. YUNUS S/O. HASANSAB TALAWAR,
AGE:34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE,
R/O NEAR MUTTON MARKET,
DALIMBAR TOTA GOKAK,
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
6. MAHABOOBI W/O. IMAMSAB KEMPANNAVAR,
AGE:35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSE HOLD,
R/O KALADAGI, TQ:BAGALKOT,
DIST:BAGALKOT.
7. SALMA W/O. AMMASAB KALIBAI,
AGE:33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:HOUSE HOLD,
R/O MAKKALGERI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANTOSH HATTIKATAGI AND
RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
R2(A) TO R2(C); R3(A) TO R3(D) AND R4 TO R7;
R1 IS ABATED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (R) OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.2017,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK ON IA
NO.11 IN O.S.NO.370/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.11
IN O.S.NO.370/2014, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE GOKAK AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508
MFA No. 100878 of 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The above appeal is filed by the defendant No.7
challenging the order dated 28.06.2017 passed on I.A.No.11 in
O.S.No.370/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak1.
2. The relevant facts leading to the present
appeal are that the respondent No.1 instituted a suit in
O.S.No.370/2014 seeking for following reliefs:
A) It be declared that the plaintiff is the owner of
the suit property and consequential relief of
injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6
from getting their names entered by changing
the revenue records.
B) Ad-interim temporary injunction as prayed in
I.A. be granted.
C) Costs of the suit be awarded.
D) Any other relief/s as the court deems fit and
proper be granted to the plaintiff.
E) Permission to amend the plaint as and when
necessary be reserved to the plaintiff.
Hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508
3. In the said suit, the defendant No.7 filed
I.A.No.11 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 for ad-interim
injunction restraining the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 from
getting their names entered in the suit property. The Trial
Court by order dated 28.06.2017 rejected the said application.
Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
4. It is forthcoming that while considering the
I.A.No.11 filed by the appellant/defendant No.7, the Trial Court
has held as follows:
"7. Admittedly defendants No.1 to 6 are parties
before Tahasildar Gokak in waradi filed by them as
legal heirs of Kamalasab Talawar to which this
plaintiff has filed objections. It is the claim of the
defendant No.7 that he had purchased the suit
property, he being the owner is entitle to get his
name entered in revenue records, but defendants
No.1 to 6 denying his title, are trying to get their
names entered in the revenue documents of suit
property, if they succeed he will be put to
hardship. It is admitted fact that in the RTS
proceedings before the Tahasildar Gokak it is
posted for order after hearing both side.
Admittedly this defendant No.7 is not party to the
Hereinafter referred to as "CPC"
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508
said proceeding. Inspite of knowing he is not made
as a party in the said proceeding has filed this
application restraining the defendants No.1 to 6
getting their names entered in revenue records of
suit property. This defendant No.7 has efficacious
remedy before Tahasildar Gokak on the basis of
sale deed in respect of suit property. This Court
cannot interfere in the revenue proceeding as per
the provisions of KLR Act. Inspite having
efficacious remedy and in view of the provisions of
KLR Act this defendant ought to have approached
Tahasildar Gokak for necessary reliefs on that
ground this application is not maintainable before
this court. As already said in view of provisions of
KLR Act this court is barred from interfering with
the revenue proceedings. Hence the application is
not maintainable before this court. It is in this
background, I hold that defendant No.7 has not
made out any grounds to consider his application."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. It is forthcoming that defendant No.7 is a
purchaser of the suit property from defendants 1 to 6.
Defendant No.7 is seeking to restrain the plaintiff and
defendants 1 to 6 vide I.A.No.11 from getting their names
entered in the revenue records. The suit has been filed for
declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit
property and to restrain the defendants 1 to 6 from getting
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16508
their names entered in the revenue records. Hence, until the
right of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property is
adjudicated upon, the question of granting the relief as sought
by defendant No.7 vide I.A.No.11 does not arise.
6. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
relevant factual aspect of the matter. Further, in view of the
pendency of the suit, the change of revenue entries will be as
per the rights of the parties adjudicated in the suit.
7. In view of the aforementioned, the appellant
has failed to demonstrate that the order passed by the Trial
Court is in any manner erroneous and is liable to be interfered
with by this Court in the present appeal.
8. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as being
devoid of merit.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
YAN
CT-ASC
