Karnataka High Court
Sri.Gotu @ Sameer Madhukar Deshpande vs Sri.Satteppa Balappa Karigar on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
RFA No. 100118 of 2016
C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100118 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100090 OF 2016
IN RFA NO.100118 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOTU @ SAMEER MADHUKAR DESHPANDE,
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BRAHMANPURI,
MIRAJ-416416, DISTRICT SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-STATE.
- APPELLANT
(BY SMT. BHARATI G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SATTEPPA BALAPPA KARIGAR,
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. SRI. BASAPPA BALAPPA KARIGAR,
AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O. ALAKHANUR, NOW AT BADBYAKUD,
Digitally signed TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 3. SMT. BAGAWWA W/O. SIDDAAPPA BAGI,
Location: High
Court of AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
4. SMT. LAKKAWWA W/O. SATTEPPA PUJARI,
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O. ALAKHANUR,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
5. SRI. MAGEPPA BASALINGAPPA THAKKANNAVAR,
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BADBYAKUD,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
RFA No. 100118 of 2016
C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.96 R/W. ORDER
XLI RULE 1 & 2 OF THE CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 02.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S. NO.75/2012, BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG & ETC.
IN RFA NO. 100090 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MAGEPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA THAKKANNAVAR,
AGE 45 Y EARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BADBYAKUD
VILLAGE, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
- APPELLANT
(BY SMT. P. G. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SATTEPPA S/O. BALAPPA KARIGAR,
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAKHANUR VILLAGE, NOW AT BADBYAKUD,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. BALAPPA KARIGAR,
AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAKHANUR VILLAGE, NOW AT BADBYAKUD,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. BAGAWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA BAGI,
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAKHANUR
VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. LAKKAWWA W/O. SATTEPPA PUJARI,
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAKHANUR
VILLAGE, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI. GOTU @ SAMEER S/O. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE,
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BRAHMANPURI,
MIRAJ-416416, DIST: SANGLI, MAHARASTRA-STATE.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 SERVED)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.96 R/W. ORDER
XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 02.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S. NO.75/2012 BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG & ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
RFA No. 100118 of 2016
C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and
decree passed in O.S. No. 75/2012 dated 02.02.2016 by
the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag.
2. Brief facts of this case are that plaintiffs are stated to
be tenants of R.S. No. 88 totally measuring 20 acres 4
guntas of Badabyakud village of Raibag Taluk. According
to the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 was the landlord of the
said property. Defendant No.1 said to have executed
agreement of sale dated 23.12.2002 in favour of
defendant No.2-Mageppa Basalingappa Thakkannavar
agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs.2,00,000/- and
received Rs.50,000/- as advance. It is said that defendant
No.1 failed to execute the sale deed. Therefore the
defendant No.2 filed O.S. No. 91/2005 seeking the relief of
specific performance of the contract. Defendants No.1 and
2 were said to be parties in the said litigation.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
3. It is further stated that during the pendency of O.S.
No. 91/2005. The parties settled the dispute and joint
compromise petition was filed dated 23.03.2005. By
virtue of the said compromise, O.S. No. 91/2005 was
decreed on 23.03.2005 before the Lok Adalath. It appears
thereafter the plaintiffs herein filed appeal in R.A. No.
214/2008 challenging the decree passed in O.S. No.
91/2005 before the learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Belagavi.
The said appeal was said to be dismissed on merits on the
ground of maintainability. Thereafter that litigation ended
there itself.
4. Thereafter the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 75/2012 filed the
said suit praying the relief of declaration, to declare them
as owners, in possession of the suit property by holding
that compromise decree dated 23.03.2005 in O.S. No.
91/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gokak
sitting at Raibag, is null and void and not binding on them
and for restraining the defendants or anybody claiming
through or under them from interefering with the peaceful
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
possession, use and enjoyment of the suit property by way
of injunction.
5. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and
appreciating the pleadings and evidence disposed of the
suit O.S. No. 75/2012 by impugned judgment and decree
dated 02.02.2006. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed
in part. The compromise decree passed in O.S. No.
91/2005 on the file of this Court dated 23.03.2005 is null
and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. It is also
ordered that the defendants and their men were restrained
from disturbing the possession of the suit lands by the
plaintiffs, by way of permanent injunction. Being
aggrieved by the same, both the defendants No.1 and 2
filed the above said two appeals.
6. It is pertinent to note that the dispute of tenancy is
pending between the plaintiffs herein as well as the
defendants No.1 and 2 before the Land Tribunal. The
Land Tribunal decided the said dispute on 04.08.2011
granting occupancy right in respect of R.S. No. 88
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
measuring 20 acres 4 guntas in favour of the plaintiffs in
O.S. No. 75/2012.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Land
Tribunal, both defendants No.1 and 2 filed two writ
petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 66107/2011 c/w
W.P. No. 106448/2016. The Writ Court considering the
contentions of the parties on merits decided the matter by
order dated 05.07.2023 and both the writ petitions were
dismissed. In the said writ proceedings also the parties to
the litigation referred the judgment passed in O.S. No.
91/2005 as well as the O.S. No. 75/2012, which is noted
in the order passed in the writ proceedings referred supra.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants in these
appeals submits that the writ petitioner in both the Writ
Petitions have filed appeals in W.A. No. 100659/2023 and
W.A. No. 100485/2023 and are pending before the
Division Bench of this Court for consideration. There is no
dispute regarding the above said factual matrix.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
9. Looking to the contentions of both the parties the
rights of the parties could be decided only after final
adjudication of tenancy dispute. If the plaintiffs herein
succeed in the pending dispute then the question of
defendant No.1 executing the sale deed in favour of
defendant No.2 or transfer of right by the defendant No.1
in favour of defendant No.2 do not arise. Therefore
whatever the final adjudication of dispute by the Land
Tribunal will have a direct impact on the rights of the
parties in the present litigation. Till the final adjudication
of the writ appeals in tenancy dispute, even if any order or
decree passed by the civil Court does not have bearing on
the rights of the parties. Therefore giving liberty to both
the parties to agitate their rights before the competent
Court, if required, after final adjudication of the tenancy
dispute, these appeals could be disposed of, because u/S
132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the civil
Court has no jurisdiction to decide regarding the tenancy
rights between the parties. Even if the defendant No.1
executes the sale deed as per the compromise decree in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
favour of defendant No.2, it may not have any legal effect.
Considering these facts and circumstances, following
orders are passed.
ORDER
Both the appeals are disposed of giving liberty to the
parties to agitate their right after final adjudication of the
tenancy dispute by the competent authorities.
Since these appeals are not decided on merits,
contentions of both the parties are kept open to be urged
in a future litigation, if any, required to be filed.
Send back the trial court records along with a copy of
this order.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
BVV /CT-AN
