Karnataka High Court
Yellappa S/O. Sanjeevappa vs Virupaxappa S/O. Mallappa Angadi on 11 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
RSA No. 5409 of 2010
C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5409 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ-)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5410 OF 2010
IN RSA NO.5409/2010
BETWEEN:
YELLAPPA S/O. SANJEEVAPPA ,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: KOWL-BODUR, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. VIRUPAXAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA ANGADI,
MOHANKUMAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
B SHELAR
R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
1(A) NIRMALA W/O. VIRUPAXAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 62, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
1(B) SHEKAVVA D/O. VIRUPAXAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
RSA No. 5409 of 2010
C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010
1(C) SMT. JAYASHRI
W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR PATTANASHETTY,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.NO.250, DFA TOWNSHIP,
DANDELI-581325, TQ: HALIYAL,
DIST: UTTARKANNADA.
1(D) SMT. MALA W/O. SANGAPPA MENTAGERI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: UPPAR ONI, SINDHANOOR-584123,
TQ: SINDHANOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
(RESPONDNETS NO.1 AND 1(A) EXPIRED
AND R1(B) TO (D) ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS)
2. SMT. AMARAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
3. VEERESH S/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
4. MISS. KALAKAMMA D/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: MINOR, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED THROUGH
HER NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER
SMT. AMARAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI,
THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4, R1(B, C & D)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 READ WITH ORDER XLII, RULE 1 OF C.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 22ND FEBRUARY 2010
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK
COURT-I, KOPPAL, IN R.A.NO.1/2002, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
RSA No. 5409 of 2010
C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010
RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4TH JANUARY 2002,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, IN O.S.
NO.57/1994, ON HIS FILE, AND BY DECREEING THE SAID SUIT AS
PRAYED, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
IN RSA NO.5410/2010
BETWEEN:
YELLAPPA S/O. SANJEEVAPPA ,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: KOWL-BODUR, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BASAPPA S/O. SHANKRAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
2. SMT. PARVATEVVA W/O. ERAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
3. SHARANAPPA S/O. ERAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
4. SHIVARUDRAPPA
S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA ANAGADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
RSA No. 5409 of 2010
C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
DEAD BY HIS LR'S.
4A. MISS. KALAKAMMA D/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
4B. VEERESH S/O. LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4C. SMT. RATNAMMA D/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI
W/O. MALLAPPA GULAGOUDAR
AGE: 43 YEARS,
4D. SMT. SHIVAGANGA D/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI,
W/O. CHANDRAKANT ANGADI,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
4E. CHANNAVEERAPPA S/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI,
W/O. DODDABAAPPA BUDIHAL,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4F. SMT. SHANTA D/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA ANGADI,
W/O. DODDABASAPPA BUDIHAL,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O. VANGAERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI.
5. BAYAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
6. NANAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
7. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. VEERBHADRAPPA ANGADI,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
RSA No. 5409 of 2010
C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
8. CHANNAVEERAPPA S/O. VEERBHADRAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT & AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
9. MISS. GUNDAVVA D/O. VEERBHADRAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/AT: VANAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
RESPONDENT-9, BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED
THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND MOTHER
SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. VEERBHADRAPPA ANGADI,
RESPONDENT NO.7.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3, R4(A-C) & R7-R9;
R5 & R6-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 READ WITH ORDER XLII, RULE 1 OF C.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 22ND FEBRUARY 2010
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK
COURT-I, KOPPAL, IN R.A.NO.2/2002, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4TH JANUARY 2002,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, IN O.S.
NO.54/1994, ON HIS FILE, AND BY DECREEING THE SAID SUIT AS
PRAYED, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
05.03.2025 MARCH, 2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
RSA No. 5409 of 2010
C/W RSA No. 5410 of 2010
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV JUDGMENT
1. RSA No.5409 of 2010 is filed by plaintiff No.2
challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010 passed
in R.A.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I,
Koppal, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and
decree dated 04.01.2002 passed in O.S.No.57 of 1994 on the
file of the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Koppal, decreeing the suit of
the plaintiffs.
2. RSA No.5410 of 2010 is filed by plaintiff No.2
challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010 passed
in R.A.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I,
Koppal, (for short "the First Appellate Court") allowing the
appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated
04.01.2002 passed in O.S.No.54 of 1994 on the file of the Civil
Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Koppal, (for short "the Trial Court") decreeing
the suit of the plaintiff.
3. Since question of law involved in these appeals
arising out of same parties and therefore, the appeals were
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common
judgment.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these
appeals shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking
before the Trial Court.
FACTS IN RSA NO.5409 OF 2010:
5. The plaint averments are that, the land bearing
Sy.No.107/2, measuring 28 acres, 09 guntas, situate at
Vanageri Village, Kustagi Taluk, is a part of the Sy.No.107/A,
as per Khasara pahani. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the
schedule property is belonging to father of plaintiff No.1-
Mallappa Hoskeri and he died 50 years ago and thereafter, the
plaintiff No.1 being only daughter has succeeded to the suit
schedule property. It is also stated in the plaint that, on
account of family necessity, the plaintiff No.1 was residing at
Goa for sometime, however, used to visit Vanageri village
frequently. It is further stated that one Mallappa s/o. Shivappa
Angadi, (father of defendant No.1 and 2) was entrusted to
assist the plaintiff No.1 in agricultural operation and after the
death of said Mallappa, defendants being the sons of said
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
Mallappa were assisting the plaintiff No.1 in cultivating the suit
land. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 left Goa permanently and
returned to native place to reside during the year April, 1994
and was personally cultivating the suit land. Thereafter, the
plaintiff came to know that name of the defendants was
incorporated in the record of rights in respect of the subject
land and as such, plaintiff has filed O.S.No.57 of 1994 seeking
relief of declaration and injunction and also alternatively sought
for relief of possession in respect of the suit property.
6. After service of summons, 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 plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit land and
plaintiff No.1 is not the daughter of Mallappa and also stated
that, their father-Mallappa was cultivating the land in question
for decades and accordingly, defendants became the owners of
the land in question. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the
suit.
7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court
has formulated issues for its consideration.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
8. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have
examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 01
document as Exs.P1. On the other hand, defendants have
examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 15
documents as Exs.D1 to D15.
9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 04.01.2002 decreeing
the suit of the plaintiffs and being aggrieved by the same, the
defendants have preferred Regular Appeal in R.A.No.1 of 2002
on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was
resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after re-
appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree
dated 22.02.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.57 of
1994. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs
have preferred RSA No.5409 of 2010 under Section 100 of CPC.
FACTS IN RSA NO.5410 OF 2010:
10. The plaint averments are that, the land bearing
Sy.No.107/1, measuring 13 acres, 24 guntas, situate at
Vanageri Village, Kustagi Taluk, is a part of the Sy.No.107/A,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
as per Khasara pahani. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
schedule property is belonging to father of plaintiff No.1-
Mallappa Hosakeri and he died 50 years ago and thereafter, the
plaintiff No.1 being only daughter has succeeded to the suit
schedule property. It is also stated in the plaint that, on
account of family necessity, the plaintiff No.1 was residing at
Goa for some time, however, used to visit Vanageri village
frequently. It is also stated that one Channaveerappa
Veerabasappa Angadi, (father of defendant Nos.1 to 4) was
entrusted to assist the plaintiff No.1 in agricultural operation
and after the death of said Mallappa, defendants being the sons
of said Mallappa were assisting the plaintiff No.1 in cultivating
the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 left Goa
permanently and returned to native place to reside during the
year April, 1994 and was personally cultivating the suit land.
Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that name of the
defendants was incorporated in the record of rights in respect
of the subject land and as such, plaintiff has filed O.S. No.54 of
1994 seeking relief of declaration and injunction and also
alternatively sought for relief of possession in respect of the
suit property.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
11. After service of summons, the defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the
averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant
Nos. 2 to 6 that the plaintiffs are not owners of the suit land
and plaintiff No.1 is not a daughter of Mallappa and also stated
that, their father-Channaveerappa Angadi, was cultivating the
land in question for decades and accordingly, defendant Nos. 1
to 4 became owners of the land in question. Accordingly, he
sought for dismissal of the suit.
12. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court
has formulated issues for its consideration.
13. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have
examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 02
documents as Exs.P1 and P2. On the other hand, defendants
have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced
19 documents as Exs.D1 to D19.
14. The trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 04.01.2002 decreed
the suit of the plaintiffs and being aggrieved by the same, the
defendants have preferred Regular Appeal in R.A.No.2 of 2002
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was
resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, after re-
appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree
dated 22.02.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.54 of
1994. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs
have preferred RSA No.5410 of 2010 under Section 100 of CPC.
15. This Court, in RSA No.5409/2010, vide order dated
02.02.2016 formulated the following substantial question of
law.
1) Whether the first appellate Court was right in
dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff by
holding that the plaintiff is not the owner of the
suit schedule property?
2) Whether the first appellate Court was right in
declining to grant the consequential relief of
possession to the plaintiff?
16. This Court, in RSA No.5410/2010, vide order dated
26.10.2016 formulated the following substantial question of
law.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
"Whether the judgment and decree of the first
appellate Court is perverse in holding that the
revenue entries are not documents of title
when it is specifically pleaded that properties
are ancestral in nature?"
17. I have heard Sri. Shriharsha A Neelopant, learned
counsel for the appellants, and Sri. P. G. Mogali, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1(B), (C) & (D) and 2
to 4.
18. Sri. Shriharsha A Neelopant, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that, the First Appellate Court has
committed an error in not considering the fact that, the father
of the plaintiff No.1 was owner of the land in question and the
Khasara pahani produced at Ex.P1 would establish the legal
right of the father of the plaintiff No.1 as the owner of the land
in question and the said aspect of the matter was not
considered by the First Appellate Court. It is also argued by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, the First
Appellate Court has committed an error in investigating into the
relationship of Sri. Mallappa-father of the plaintiff with plaintiff
No.1, without considering the revenue records for more than
five decades, which clearly establishes that the plaintiff No.1 is
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
the daughter of Mallappa. In this regard, it is argued that the
First Appellate Court has ignored the evidence of PW3.
19. Nextly, it is contended by learned counsel Sri.
Shriharsha A Neelopant for the appellants that, Ex.D1 is only
the record of rights, which shows about the possessory title and
not the ownership in respect of subject land and that apart,
Ex.D1 indicates the name of Hosagerappa and the defendants
have not proved their relationship with the said Hosagerappa
and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
20. Based on the submission with regard to Ex.P1,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jt.
Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another v/s. D.
Narasing Rao and others1 and held that, the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court requires to be confirmed by
setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate
Court.
21. Per Contra, Sri.P.G.Mogali, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that plaintiff No.1 is not the daughter of
AIR 2015 SC 1021
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
Mallappa. He further contended that, the entries in RTC
Extracts does not confer title and it is the duty of the plaintiff
No.1 to make out a case based on the title and possession and
therefore, he argued that the finding recorded by the First
Appellate Court is just and proper, which does not call for
interference in these appeals. He also argued that, long course
of entries in the RTC extracts cannot be ignored as it stands in
the name of defendants and have presumptive value and
therefore, to buttress his arguments he places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Prabhagiya Van Adhikari, Awadh Van Prabhag v. Arun
Kumar Bharadwaj (Dead) through L.Rs and others2 and in
the case of Sri.Bhimeshwara Swami Varu Temple v.
Pedapudi Krishna Murthi and others3 and accordingly,
sought for dismissal of the appeals.
22. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the plaintiff has filed
O.S.No.57/1994 and O.S.No.54/1994 against the defendants
seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief that the
AIR 2021 SC 4739
(1973) 2 SCC 261
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
land bearing SY.No.107/2 measuring 20 acres 9 guntas and
land bearing Sy.No.107/1 measuring 13 acres 24 guntas at
Vanageri village, Kushtagi Taluk is part of Sy.No.107/A and
same was belonged to the father of the plaintiff-Mallappa
Hosakeri. On the other hand, the defendants contended that
the defendants were in possession of the land in question
continuously for more than two decades and the plaintiff is not
the daughter of Mallappa Hosakeri. The Trial Court after
considering the material on record, particularly referring to
Ex.P1-Khasara Pahani, held that the said document stands in
the name of the father of the plaintiff-Mallappa Hosakeri.
Accordingly, decreed the suit.
23. The First Appellate Court, set aside the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the
entry made in Ex.D1 shows that Hosagerappa, and the stray
entries in Ex.P1 cannot be considered to declare the title of the
property in question. In the backdrop of this aspect, I have
given my anxious consideration to the document produced at
Ex.P1, which is a Khasara Pahani of the land in question for the
year 1954, which reflects the name of Mallappa (father of the
plaintiff). Ex.D1 was prepared in the year 1954 wherein name
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
of the plaintiff No.1 shown as the daughter of Mallappa or
Hosagerappa. Both Ex.P1 and D1 shows that one Hosagerappa
S/o.Mallappa and the name of the plaintiff No.1 was entered in
the year 1954. It is the case of the defendants that the name of
the defendants was entered in the possessory column of the
land records and the name of the plaintiff No.1 was
incorporated after 1954 in the revenue records and these
entries reflecting the name of the plaintiff No.1 do not confer
title to the plaintiff No.1. In the said aspect of the matter, I
have carefully considered the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Counsel in the case of D.Narasing Rao
(supra) wherein it is held that Khasara Pahani would serve the
purpose of deed of title when there is no other title deeds. It is
also to be noted that Khasara is a register recording the
incidents of tenure and is a historical record which would serve
the purpose of a deed of title, when there is no other title
deeds. In the said aspect of the matter, taking into
consideration the Ex.P1 and Ex.D1, I am of the view that the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents
cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that the judgments
referred to by the respondents herein indicate that the entries
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
in the RTC does not confer title and the long entries in the
records of rights cannot be ignored. These aspects cannot be
imported for the factual aspects on record as the plaintiff has
produced the title deed, particularly, Ex.P1-Khasara Pahani,
which stands in the name of the father of the plaintiff-Mallappa.
It is also to be noted that the PW2 and PW3 have deposed that
the plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of Mallappa and therefore, the
said unimpeachable evidence corroborates the case of the
plaintiff No.1 and the said finding by the Trial Court cannot be
interfered with in these appeals. It is also pertinent to mention
here that as the name of the father of the plaintiff-Mallappa
was shown in the Khasara Pahani-Ex.P1, I am of the view that
the Trial Court on careful examination of the material on
record, rightly decreed the suit. However, the First Appellate
Court has committed an error in interfering with the well
reasoned judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and
further, the First Appellate Court has not re-appreciated the
material on record in the right perspective. Hence, the
substantial question of law framed above favours the plaintiffs
and as such, I pass the following:
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4622
ORDER
i) Both the appeals are allowed.
ii) The judgment and decree dated
22.02.2010 in R.A.No.1/2002 and the
judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010
R.A. No.2/2002 passed by the Fast Track
Court-I, Koppal, are hereby set aside.
iii) The judgment and decree dated
04.01.2002 in O.S.No.57/1994 and the
judgment and decree dated 04.01.2002 in
O.S.No.54/1994 passed by the Civil Judge,
(Sr.Dn.), Koppal, are hereby confirmed.
iv) Suit in O.S.No.57/1994 and suit in O.S.
No.54/1994 on the file of the Civil Judge,
(Sr.Dn.), Koppal, are hereby decreed.
v) In view of disposal of the appeals, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and are disposed
of accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
CT-MCK
