Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakkavva D/O. Parasappa ... vs Sri. Parasappa Mallappa Dodannavar on 17 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822
RSA No. 100022 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100022 OF 2018 (DEC-)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKKAVVA D/O. PARASAPPA DODANNAVAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590016.
2. SMT. ITTAWWA D/O. PARASAPPA DODANNAVAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590016.
3. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. PARASAPPA DODANNAVAR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590016.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R.K. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
1. SRI. PARASAPPA MALLAPPA DODANNAVAR,
MALAGALADINNI AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.03.18
DIST: BELAGAVI-590016.
10:57:29 +0530
2. SRI. LAXAMAPPA S/O. PARASAPPA DODANNAVAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590016.
3. SRI. BASAVANNI S/O. MALLAPPA LATTI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVAGOUDANATTI, TALUKA: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590016.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822
RSA No. 100022 of 2018
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS AND DECREES PASSED IN
R.A.NO.214/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK PASSED ON
20.10.2016 AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.156/2004 DATED 24.02.2010 BY THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) GOKAK AT GOKAK AND TO
DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS, IN THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs,
challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016
passed in RA No.214/2010 on the file of XII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak (for
short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'),
dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and
decree dated 24.02.2010 passed in OS No.156/2004 on
the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gokak (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), partly decreeing
the suit of the plaintiffs.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs
and defendant No.1 are the absolute owner of the suit
schedule property and as such, sought for declaration
that, the suit property has been illegally sold by the
defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and same is
not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Hence,
the plaintiffs have filed OS No.156/2004, seeking relief of
declaration with consequential relief of injunction.
4. After service of summons, the defendant No.3
entered appearance and filed detailed written statement
denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the
specific case of the defendant No.3 that, the defendant
No.3 is bonafide purchaser of the suit property as per the
registered sale deed dated 05.11.2003 and the defendant
No.3 is in the possession of suit schedule property and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial
Court has formulated issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have
examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked
06 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On the other hand,
defendants have examined eight witnesses DW1 to DW8
and produced 20 documents as Exs.D1 to D20.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the material
on record, by its judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010
decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in part and being
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred
Regular Appeal in RA No.214/2010 on the file of First
Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the
defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating
the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated
20.10.2016 dismissed the appeal and consequently,
confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court in OS No.156/2004. Being aggrieved by the same,
the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this Regular
Second Appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822
8. I have heard Sri. R. K. Kulkarni,, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants.
9. Sri. R. K. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants contended that, the suit land is the
ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1
and 2 as per the partition deed dated 13.10.2003 and the
respondent No.1 relinquished his rights and executed the
registered sale deed dated 05.11.2003 in favour of
defendant No.3 which is bad in law and said aspect of the
matter is not considered by both the Courts below.
10. It is also contended that, there was no legal
necessity to sell the suit land by defendant No.1 in favour
of defendant No.3 and therefore, sought for interference
by this Court.
11. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants, I have
carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts
below. It is not in dispute that, the defendant No.1 is the
father of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff
No.3. The defendant No.1 has sold the suit land in favour
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4822
of defendant No.3 as per registered sale deed dated
05.11.2003.
12. Taking into consideration the finding recorded
by the Trial Court as to issue No.1 and 2 is concerned as
the defendant No.1 has sold the property of the suit
schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 for valuable
consideration as per the registered document and
therefore, I do not find any material irregularities or
perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the
Courts below and accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal
is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal fails.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMM
CT-MCK
