Karnataka High Court
Jandisab S/O Imamsab Majjagi vs The President on 18 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930
RSA No. 5421 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5421 OF 2009 (-)
BETWEEN:
JANDISAB S/O. IMAMSAB MAJJAGI,
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LR'S.
1A) SMT. JAIRABI W/O. JANDISAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
1B) MAHABOOBI W/O. BABAJAN KITTUR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
1C) RAFIK S/O. JANDISAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
1D) MANSOF S/O. JANDISAB MAJJAGI
Digitally signed by
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: HIGH
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
1E) FATHIMA W/O. SHARIFSAB DYAMPUR
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
1F) ISHAK S/O. JANDISAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930
RSA No. 5421 of 2009
1G) IMAMHUSSAIN S/O. JANDISAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
BABASAB S/O. IMAMSAB MAJJAGI,
SINCE DECEASED HIS LR'S.
2A) SMT. IMAMBI W/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
2B) ABDULGANI S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
2C) NASIM W/O. HANIFSAB UMACHAGI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
2D) YUSUF S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
2E) CHANDBI W/O. SHAKASHVALI PATHAN
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
2F) NAZEER S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
2G) MOHAMMADJAFAR S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930
RSA No. 5421 of 2009
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
2H) SADIQ S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
2I) HUMAYUN S/O. BABUSAB MAJJAGI
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSAGARADDI ONI, BETAGERI,
GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
3. DAVALSAB S/O. IMAMSAB MAJJAGI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSA GARADI ONI, BETAGERI,
TQ: & DIST: GADAG.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PADMAJA TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRESIDENT,
VIDHYADANA SAMITI, GADAG,
TQ & DIST: GADAG.
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY D.C. GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE
DATED 08/08/2005 IN O.S.NO:236/2004 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) GADAG AND THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 21/03/2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.113/2005 BY
THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) GADAG IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930
RSA No. 5421 of 2009
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
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009 in
R.A.No.113/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)
and CJM, Gadag1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the
judgment and decree dated 08.08.2005 in
O.S.No.236/2004 on the file of the III Additional Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gadag2 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit
schedule property is belong to father of the plaintiffs -
Imamsab Majjagi, who died during 1975. It is also stated
that defendant No.1 is the lessee of the suit schedule
property and further the defendant No.2 has taken 5
hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930
guntas of the land vide order 05.12.2000 and therefore it
is the case of the plaintiffs that the names of the plaintiffs
have to be entered in the revenue records, by deleting the
names which are already existed in the revenue records. It
is also stated in the plaint that the father of the plaintiffs
has leased out the land in question for a lease period of 99
years in favour of the defendant No.1 and the defendant
No.1 is running girls high school, on payment of rent of
Rs.160/- per year to the plaintiffs - lesser. Hence, it is the
case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs have to be declared
as the owners of the schedule land and to enter their
names in the CTS records and accordingly, filed
O.S.No.236/2004 seeking the prayer as stated in the
plaint.
4. After service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement. It is the
specific contention of defendant No.1 that the plaintiffs are
not the owners of the suit schedule property and the suit
land was vested in the Government during 1949 and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930
thereafter, by order 05.12.2000, 5 guntas of the land was
allotted in favour of Red Cross Association and also it is
stated that defendant No.1 is not the lessee of the father
of the plaintiffs and accordingly sought for dismissal of the
suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have no locus standi
to file the suit. It is also stated that the sanad has been
issued by the Government of Bombay on 16.06.1949 and
in terms of the same, the defendant No.1 has become
absolute owner of the suit land and therefore sought for
dismissal of the suit.
5. The defendant No.2, has filed separate written
statement, supporting the contention of defendant No.1
and stated that as per the order passed during 1949, the
records pertaining to the land in question stands in the
name of defendant No.1 and accordingly sought for
dismissal of the suit.
6. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on
record, has framed issues for its consideration. In order to
establish their case, the plaintiff has examined two
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930
witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and produced 15 documents
and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.15. The defendants
have examined one witness as DW.1 and got marked 5
documents as Exs.D.1 to D.5.
7. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 08.08.2005
dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.113/2005 on the file of the
First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the
defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating
the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated
21.03.2009, dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed
the judgment and decree in O.S.No.236/2004. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this
Regular Second Appeal.
8. I have heard Smt.Padmaja Tadapatri for
Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and Sri.Girish Yadawad for Sri.V.P.Kulkarni, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that both the Courts below have committed an
error in not considering the fact that the father of the
plaintiffs was the owner of the land in question and in this
regard, both Courts below have not considered Ex.P.10, to
accept the averments made in the plaint and therefore
sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended
by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the
basis of Ex.D.1 is the lease deed in which the land in
question has been leased for a period of 99 years as per
Ex.P.10 and therefore sought for interference of this Court.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 submitted that, the land in question is an
Inam land and thereafter the land in question was vested
with the Government and thereafter there was no regrant
order in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore sought to
justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the
Courts below.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930
11. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully
examined the findings recorded by both the Courts below.
The plaintiffs are claiming right over the suit schedule
property based on the title vested with the father of the
plaintiffs and the suit land is an Inam land. It is also
forthcoming from the findings recorded by the Courts
below that, after the land in question was vested with the
Government, the Government of Bombay by order dated
16.06.1949 granted the land in favour of the defendant
No.1 as per sanad - Ex.D.1.
12. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court after
considering the entire material on record as per the
observation made at para Nos.23 to 25, arrived at a
conclusion that the plaintiffs have not placed any material
to establish their right over the suit schedule property and
further the defendant No.1 has produced Ex.D.1 to
substantiate its right over the schedule property. It is also
to be noted that the plaintiffs have not taken any steps for
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4930
cancellation of Ex.D.1, which makes it clear that the
finding recoded by both Courts below is just and proper
and no interference is called for. Therefore, I do not find
any merit in the appeal.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the
stage of admission as the appellants have not made out a
case for formulation of substantial question of law as
required under Section 100 of CPC.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SH
CT-MCK
