Karnataka High Court
Maliksab S/O Hussainsab Nalband vs Smt. Manjula D/O Nagesh Raikar on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15141-DB
RFA No. 100319 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100319 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
MALIKSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB NALBAND
AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.35, INDRAPASTA NAGAR,
ANAND NAGAR ROAD, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI-580021.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SADIQ N.GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.MANJULA D/O. NAGESH RAIKAR,
AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
ANAND NAGAR ROAD,
Digitally signed by
OLD HUBBALLI-580021.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
2. SMT. VRUNDABAI CHANDRAKANT KAGALKAR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Date: 2024.10.23
14:26:32 +0530 R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
ANAND NAGAR ROAD,
OLD HUBBALLI-580021.
3. SMT. PRAMILA W/O. GANAPATI KAGALKAR
AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
ANAND NAGAR ROAD, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI-580021.
4. SMT. PUSHPA W/O. MANJUNATH REVANKAR
AGED ABOUT: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
ANAND NAGAR ROAD,
OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580021.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15141-DB
RFA No. 100319 of 2018
5. SMT. SAVITRI D/O. NAGESH RAIKAR
AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
ANAND NAGAR ROAD,
OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580021.
6. SMT. MUKTA D/O. NAGESH RAIKAR
AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHIVAPUTRANAGAR,
ANAND NAGAR ROAD,
OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580021.
7. THE HUBLI-DHARWAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
HUBBALLI-580020,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.3,
THE HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, HUBBALLI-580020.
9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
10. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
OLD-HUBLI POLICE STATION,
OLD-HUBLI, HUBBALLI-580019.
11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD,
D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.04.2018 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.357/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HUBBALLI,
BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15141-DB
RFA No. 100319 of 2018
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
Heard appellant's counsel. This appeal is filed by the
plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2018
in O.S.No.357/2016. This is a common judgment in five suits
namely O.S.Nos.352, 357, 358, 359 and 360 of 2016. The
plaintiff claimed title over the suit property on the basis of a
sale deed dated 30.07.2007 executed by Smt.Susheela Udupi.
On appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court has given a
finding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit
property on the date of suit and this conclusion was drawn
based on RTC marked as Ex.D1. The plaintiff has not produced
any evidence to show that he was in possession of the suit
property on the date of suit. It is a well settled principle that in
a suit for declaration of title if the plaintiff is found to be not in
possession of the suit property, suit cannot be decreed for
without possession mere declaration of title serves no purpose.
In this view of the matter, we don't find any merit in this
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15141-DB
appeal. Therefore appeal is not worth admission and it is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
CLK
