Karnataka High Court
Kamadhenu Multipurpose Co-Op Women S ... vs The Kalghatagi Taluk Agricultural ... on 13 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:508
RSA No. 100820 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100820 OF 2014 (-)
BETWEEN:
1. KAMADHENU MULTIPURPOSE
CO-OP WOMEN'S SOCIETY LTD.,
(REGD), KALAGHATAGI,
DIST: DHARWAD,
RPTD.BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEEPA
W/O DAYANANDA MURKUMBI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORK,
R/O. AKKI ONI, KALAGHATAGI-581204
DIST: DHARWAD
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.VINUTA M KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
VN AND:
BADIGER
1. THE KALGHATAGI TALUK
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT CO-OP.
Digitally MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,
signed by V KALGHATAGI-581204
N BADIGER
Date: DIST: DHARWAD,
2025.01.16
12:37:25 RPTD.BY ITS PRESIDENT
+0530
2. THE MANAGER
THE KALGHATAGI TALUK AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT
CO-OP. MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.,
KALGHATAGI-581204, DIST: DHARWAD
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.S.KORISHETTAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:508
RSA No. 100820 of 2014
THIS RSA IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 18.10.2014 IN R.A.NO.26/2007 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARWAD,
ITINERARY COURT, KALAGHATAGI AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 21.02.2007 IN O.S.NO.80/2005 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT KALAGHATAGI AND DECREE
THE SUIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2014 in
R.A.No.26/2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil
Judge Itenerary Court at Kalaghatagi1, dismissing the
appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated
21.02.2007 in O.S.No.80/2005 on the file of the Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kalaghatagi2 dismissing the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
Hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'
Hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:508
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff
had taken lease of the schedule property from the
defendant - Society as per the Lease Deed dated
31.10.1991. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit
schedule property even after the period of ten years as
specified in the lease deed. It is also stated in the plaint
that, the lease premise was in bad condition and as such
the plaintiff got repaired by investing huge amount. It is
also stated in the plaint that, as the plaintiff is running
tailoring classes, rationing and kerosene sale unit to
achieve its object and as the plaintiff is regularly paying
rent to the defendant and as such the plaintiff has filed
O.S.No.80/2005 before the Trial Court seeking relief of
permanent injunction against the defendant.
4. On service of notice, defendants entered
appearance and contended that the suit itself is not
maintainable in view of Section 118 of the Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Act, 1959. It is also stated in the
written statement that defendant No.1 has leased the suit
NC: 2025:KHC-D:508
schedule property to the plaintiff as per lease deed dated
31.10.1991 and the lease period is completed and as such
the defendants denied the claim made by the plaintiff.
5. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff
examined one witness as PW.1 and has produced marked
57 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.57. The
defendant was examined as DW.1 and has not produced
any documents before the Trial Court.
6. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 21.02.2007,
dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, plaintiff
has preferred R.A.No.26/2007 on the file of the First
Appellate Court. The appeal was resisted by the
defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciation
of the material on record, by its judgment and decree
dated 18.10.2014 dismissed the appeal and consequently
confirmed the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.80/2005. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:508
7. I have heard Mrs.Vinuta M Khannur, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and
Mr.K.S.Korishettar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
8. Mrs.Vinuta M Khannur, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit is
maintainable before the Trial Court and touches the
management and constitution of the society and
defendants never asked for possession of the suit schedule
premises and the plaintiff is continuing in possession of
the schedule property and accordingly she sought for
interference of this Court.
9. Per contra, Mr.K.S.Korishettar, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents sought to justify the
impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts
below.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, it
is not in dispute that defendant No.1 has leased out
NC: 2025:KHC-D:508
schedule premises to the plaintiff for a period of ten years
as per lease deed dated 31.10.1991 (Ex.P.5). Since the
lease period is for ten years, by efflux of time the said
lease agreement has come to an end. In that view of the
matter, taking consideration of the finding recorded by the
Trial Court on issue Nos.1 and 2, I am of the view that no
interference is called for in this appeal as the period of ten
years has been completed by efflux of time and the
plaintiff cannot be permitted to continue in the schedule
premises, seeking relief of permanent injunction against
the owner of the schedule property - respondent No.1.
11. Accordingly, the appellant has not made out a
case for formulation of substantial question of law as
required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
