Karnataka High Court
Vijay Annappa Dodamani vs Vasant Bharamanna Rajesh on 9 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:317
RSA No. 1793 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1793 OF 2006 (DEC-)
BETWEEN:
1. VIJAYA ANNAPPA DODAMANI,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
R/O: C/O: R. L. KACHIGOAL
BALEKUNDRI VILLAGE,
TAL & DIST BELGAUM
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1A SHASHWAT
S/O. VIJAY DODDAMANI,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. 167, MUKTANGAN SCHOOL,
KRISHI COLONY BHAGYNAGAR,
6TH CROSS TILAKWADI,
BELAGAUM - 590006.
1B ESHWARI
VN D/O. VIJAY DODDAMANI,
BADIGER AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. 167 MUKTANGAN SCHOOL,
Digitally signed KRISHI COLONY BHAGYNAGAR,
by V N
BADIGER 6TH CROSS TILAKWADI,
Date: BELAGAUM - 590006.
2025.01.10
16:42:59 +0530
2. RAJASHEKHAR ANNAPPA DODAMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: C/O. R. L. KACHIGOAL,
BALEKUNDRI VILLAGE,
TAL & DIST BELGAUM - 590 002.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
2a. TEJASWNI
W/O. LATE RAJASHEKHAR DODDAMANI,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:317
RSA No. 1793 of 2006
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SADASHIVNAGAR, WARD NO.4,
BELAGAVI - 590009.
2b. KUM OMKAR
S/O. LATE RAJASHEKHAR DODDAMANI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SADASHIVNAGAR WARD NO.4,
BELAGAVI - 590009.
2c. KUMARI SHRESHA
D/O. LATE RAJASHEKHAR DODDAMANI,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SADASHIVNAGAR WARD NO.4,
BELAGAVI - 590009.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR AND SMT. ANUSHA S. DESAI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. VASANT BHARAMANNA RAJESH,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
R/O: PLOT NO. 10,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
BELGAUM - 590 002
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1a. SIDDARTH VASANT RAJESH KAMBLE,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. AMBEDKARNAGAR,
BELAGAVI - 590008.
1b. SANJAYA VASANTH RAJESH KAMBLE,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE IN KSRTC,
R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
BELAGAVI - 590008.
1c. SUNIL VASANTH RAJESH KAMBLE,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: NIL, R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
BELAGAVI - 590008.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:317
RSA No. 1793 of 2006
1d. SMT. SADHANA
W/O. SURENDRA MALGE,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED TEACHER,
R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
BELAGAVI - 590008.
2. ASHOK BHARAMANNA KAMBLE,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
R/O: DHOLGAARWADI
TAL: CHANDAGAD
DIST: KOLHAPUR.
PIN - 463201.
3. SMT. BABY GUNDU KAMBLE,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
R/O: THASINAL,
TAL: CHANDAGAD,
DIST: KOLHAPUR,
PIN - 463201.
4. SMT. JANABAI APPAYYA DODAMANI,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
R/ H.NO 206 HALE BELGAUM
TAL & DIST BELGAUM - 590 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) -R1(D);)
R2, R3 & R4 - APPEAL STANDS ABATED)
------
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.03.2000 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) BELGAUM IN O.S.NO.229/1998 AND
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.03.2006 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DIST JUDGE, BELGAUM IN R.A.NO.87/2004 AND ALLOW
THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:317
RSA No. 1793 of 2006
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In this appeal, the appellants are the legal
representatives of the original plaintiff. The appellants are
assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2006 in
R.A.No.87/2004 (R.A.No.118/2000 before the Principal
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belagavi) on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Belagavi1, dismissing the appeal and as
such confirming the judgment and decree dated
14.03.2000 in O.S.No.229/1988 on the file of the IV
Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Belagavi2 dismissing the
suit.
2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father -
Annappa Doddamani was the member of the Belagavi
Taluka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Co-
operative Housing Society Limited, Belagavi3 and as such
he had purchased the shares in the above society and in
Hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'
Hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'
Hereinafter referred to as 'Society'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:317
connection with the same, the society had executed a sale
agreement dated 27.06.1981 with the father of the
plaintiffs. It is stated by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs
have paid the entire sale consideration amount to the
above society and accordingly the plaintiffs have been put
into possession of the schedule property by the society. It
is the grievance of the plaintiffs that the defendants have
interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs and as such
the plaintiffs had filed suit in O.S.No.229/1988 before the
Trial Court seeking relief of declaration with consequential
relief of permanent injunction.
3. After service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement denying
the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the
defendants that the land in question is belonging to the
defendants and accordingly stated that the plaintiffs have
no right, title or interest in respect of the schedule
property and as such disputed the claim made by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:317
plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property,
accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings
on record, framed issues and additional issues for its
consideration. In order establish their case, plaintiff No.2
was examined as PW.1 and six other witnesses as PW.2 to
PW.7. The plaintiffs have produced 36 documents and
same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.36. On the other hand,
defendant No.1(a) was examined as DW.1 and got marked
21 documents as Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.21.
5. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 14.03.2000
dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.118/2000 before the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi and same was made
over to the Principal District Judge, Belagavi and
renumbered as R.A.No.87/2004. The appeal was resisted
by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after
considering the material on record, by its judgment and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:317
decree dated 22.03.2006 dismissed the appeal. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this
Regular Second Appeal.
6. I have heard Mr.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr.Dinesh M Kulkarni,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants that both the Courts below
have not considered the fact that the society had executed
a sale agreement dated 27.06.1981 in favour of the father
of the appellants and possession was also handed over to
the plaintiff's father on 30.07.1981 and that apart revenue
records have been changed accordingly in favour of the
plaintiffs and as such sought for interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, Mr.Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify
the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts
below on the ground that the sale agreement does not
NC: 2025:KHC-D:317
convey the right in favour of the agreement holder to
claim title in respect of the suit schedule property.
9. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel for the parties, the plaintiffs have
produced the sale agreement dated 27.06.1981 (Ex.P.1)
and based on the said agreement of sale, seeking right
over the property in question. It is also to be noted that
the execution of the sale agreement by the society
mentioned above in favour of the plaintiffs herein does not
convey any right in respect of the suit schedule property
unless the execution of the registered sale deed to be
made in favour of the plaintiff, where the suit schedule
property is the immovable property worth more than
Rs.100/-. In the absence of establishment of their title in
respect of the suit schedule property, so also as the
plaintiffs have failed to prove the fact that the property in
question has been conveyed to the father of the plaintiffs
in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, I
NC: 2025:KHC-D:317
am of the opinion that, there is no infirmity in the
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.
10. Though learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that, possession has been handed over by the
said society to the father of the plaintiff, however the
possession shall not follow title unless the plaintiffs prove
title in respect of the suit schedule property as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil
Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh reported in (2006) 5 SCC
558. In view of the aforementioned observations, the
appellants have not made out a case for formulation of
substantial question of law in this appeal.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SH
CT:ANB
