Karnataka High Court
Imtiyaz Ahmed Muradsab Kotwal vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:126
RSA No. 100216 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100216 OF 2022 (INJ-)
BETWEEN:
IMTIYAZ AHMED MURADSAB KOTWAL
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC. ADVOCATE,
R/O. CTS NO. 5179,
MUSLIM GALLI,
ANGOL, BELGAVI 590006.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI - 590016.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BELAGAVI - 590016.
Digitally
signed by 3. SHRI. M. P. SAVARGOL,
MANJANNA POLICE INSPECTOR,
E
TILAKWADI POLICE STATION,
Location: BELAGAVI - 590016.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA FILED U/O XLII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 100 OF CPC
1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.448/2013 ON THE
FILE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BELAGAVI AND IN
R.A.NO.21/2020 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE OR MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI IN R.A. NO.21/2020 IN
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2020
PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BELAGAVI IN
O.S.NO.448/2013.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:126
RSA No. 100216 of 2022
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing
the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2020 in R.A.No.21/2020
on the file of the III-Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Belagavi (for short "the First Appellate Court") confirming the
judgment and decree dated 03.01.2020 in O.S.No.448/2013 on
the file of the V-Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi (for
short "the Trial Court") dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. It is averred in the plaint that the ancestors of the
plaintiff were doing Talawarki in Talathi's office at Angol. In lieu
of their service rendered in the said office, the government had
granted the suit land as Inam and as such, claim made by the
plaintiff is with regard to 31 Guntas of land in R.S.No.47/4, CTS
No.3869 of Angol Mal, Belagavi. It is also stated in the plaint
that the land in question has been utilized by the ancestors of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:126
the plaintiff to burry their ancestors and therefore, it is shown
in the records of right as a "Mashan (Shamshan)". It is also
stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has also filed
O.S.No.2316/2012 before the competent Civil Court seeking
relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction, which
came to be dismissed on 26.02.2014. The grievance of the
plaintiff is that the respondents herein are interfering with the
construction put up by the plaintiff in the schedule land and as
such, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.448/2013 seeking relief of
permanent injunction against the defendants.
3.1. On service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance, however, defendant No.3 has contested the matter
by filing a written statement. It is the specific case of defendant
No.3 that the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed
and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be entitled for equitable relief
in this suit and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.
3.2. The Trial Court framed issues and thereafter
recasted the issues for consideration. In order to prove his
case, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and produced 25
documents and same were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:126
defendants have not adduced any oral or documentary
evidence. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 03.01.2020,
dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff has filed R.A.No.21/2020 and same was resisted by the
defendants. The First Appellate Court by its judgment and
decree dated 03.10.2020 dismissed the appeal and being
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Sri. Vittal Teli, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that both the Courts below have ignored the fact
that the ancestors of the plaintiff were rendering service in
Talathi's office at Angol and in lieu of service rendered by them,
suit land was granted as per Ex.P12 and therefore, the finding
recorded by both the Courts below requires to be interfered
with in this appeal.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and on careful examination
of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, it would
NC: 2025:KHC-D:126
indicate that the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.231/2012 in respect
of very same property, which came to be dismissed and same
was admitted by him in the cross-examination. It is also to be
noted that the documents referred to by the plaintiff would not
substantiate his right over the property in question and no
acceptable document has been produced by the appellant
except the oral deposition made during the evidence and
further perusal of Ex.P11 indicate that the suit property stands
in the name of the Assistant Commissioner, Belagavi. In that
view of the matter, as the plaintiff has not produced any
acceptable evidence to substantiate his right over the schedule
property including his lawful possession in respect of the suit
schedule property, I do not find any merit in the appeal.
Accordingly as there is no substantial question of law to be
framed in the present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:ANB
