Karnataka High Court
Shri. Nagangouda S/O Irangouda Patil vs Shri Basangouda S/O Shivangouda Patil on 23 June, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944
RSA No. 100270 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100270 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. NAGANGOUDA S/O. IRANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MASTAMARDI - 591 124,
TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. MAHESH S/O. IRANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MASTAMARDI - 591 124,
TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHEKHARGOUDA NAGANURI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. BASANGOUDA
S/O. SHIVANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by R/O: MASTAMARDI - 591 124,
SAROJA
HANGARAKI TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
...RESPONDENT
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI AND
SRI. SHARAD M. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
THIS REGULA SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100
R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2023 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. BELAGAVI IN
R.A.NO.131/2023; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
28.06.2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.1276/2019 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944
RSA No. 100270 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
1. This appeal is by the defendants being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2023
passed in O.S.No.1276/2019 on the file of IV Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi which is confirmed by the
judgement and decree dated 11.12.2023 passed in R.A.
No.131/2023 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge
and CJM, Belagavi by which the defendants/appellants
herein have been restrained from interfering with the
possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties
without due process of law.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff
namely Basanagouda and the father of the defendants
namely Irangouda were the brothers and the suit
properties were belonging to father of the defendants. The
plaintiff contended that upon the demise of father of the
defendants, the defendants had entered into an
agreement of sale on two occasions i.e. on 07.05.1993
and 03.06.1993 agreeing to convey the suit properties in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944
HC-KAR
his favour by receiving valuable sale consideration. That in
furtherance thereof, defendants had submitted varadi on
14.05.1993 to the Tahasildar requesting to enter the name
of the plaintiff in the revenue records. That having been
done, the defendants were interfering with the possession
of the plaintiff giving raise to cause of action to file the
suit, seeking relief of permanent injunction.
3. The defendants in the written statement denied
the very execution of the agreement as contended by the
plaintiff. It is further denied that the defendants had given
any varadi requesting name of the plaintiff to be entered
in the revenue records. Possession of the plaintiff over the
suit properties is also denied. It is contented that the
plaintiff being the eldest member of the family upon the
demise of his brother Iranagouda, who was the father of
defendants No.1 and 2, had created false documents to
deny the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the
suit properties. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944
HC-KAR
4. The Trial court based on pleadings, framed the
following issues and recorded the evidence:
"Issues
1. Whether the plaintiff proves he is in possession of the
suit property as on the date of filing the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants
are interfered with his possession?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought
for?
4. What order or decree?"
5. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court
decreed the suit restraining the defendants from
interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit
properties without due process of law. Being aggrieved,
the defendants preferred appeal before the First Appellate
Court. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of
evidence, framed the followed points for its consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiff has proved his actual
possession and enjoyment of the suit as on the date of
filing the suit?
2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree under
appeal is opposed to law, facts, evidence and
probabilities of the case and it is liable to be interfered
by this Court?
3. What order or decree?"
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944
HC-KAR
6. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the defendants are before
this Court.
7. Counsel for appellant submits that since the
defendants had specifically denied the very execution of
the agreement and they submitted varadi, the plaintiff
ought to have sought for substantiative relief of
declaration of title. That not having been done, a bare suit
for injunction was not maintainable giving raise to
substantial question of law.
8. In response, counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
submits the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have
granted bare injunction until the plaintiff was dispossessed
from the suit properties with due process of law. He
submits no rights of the parties have been adjudicated.
That the said decree has been granted on the basis of the
documents made available and the admission of the DW.1
during the cross-examination. No prejudice would be
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944
HC-KAR
caused to the defendants. It is always open for them to
seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law seeking
removal of the plaintiff. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the
appeal.
9. Counsel for appellants/defendants at this
juncture submits that since the judgement and decree has
been passed granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff
restraining the defendants not to interfere with the
possession of the plaintiff without due process of law,
appeal be disposed of reserving liberty to the
defendants/appellants to seek appropriate remedy in
accordance with law.
10. Submission is taken on record.
11. Since the judgement and decree passed by the
Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court is only
conditional subject to removal of the plaintiff in
accordance with law, and since the learned counsel for the
defendants/appellants is seeking liberty to pursue such
remedy as may be available under law seeking removal of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7944
HC-KAR
the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties in
accordance with law, nothing survives for consideration in
this matter.
12. Reserving liberty to the defendants/appellants
as sought for to initiate proceedings against the plaintiff
for his removal from the suit schedule properties, the
appeal is disposed of.
13. All contentions are kept open.
Pending I.A. stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
SH/CT-ASC
