[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Ningappa S/O Narayan Badiger vs Ratnavva W/O Hanamant Badiger on 8 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
RSA No. 5190 of 2010
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5190 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN
1. NINGAPPA
S/O. NARAYAN BADIGER,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER,
2. CHANDRAKANT
S/O. NARAYAN BADIGER,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: MILL WORKER,
3. SANJEEVKUMAR
S/O. NARAYAN BADIGER,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. SMT. SAVITRIBAI
W/O. NARAYAN BADIGER,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
(ALL ARE R/O. KONNUR, TQ: GOKAK,
Date: 2026.04.10
11:59:33 +0530 DIST: BELGAUM-591307)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. RATNAVVA
W/O. HANAMANT BADIGER,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KONNUR, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM-591307.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
RSA No. 5190 of 2010
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY 2ND
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) GOKAK DATED 08-01-2010
IN R.A.NO.2/2007 IN REVERSING JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) GOKAK
DATED 13.11.2006 IN O.S.NO.302/2002 IN SO FAR AS
GRANTING RELIEF OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
CONFIRMING FINDING ON RELIEF OF DECLARATION AND SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR DN) GOKAK DATED 30.11.2006 IN
O.S.NO.302/2002 IN SO FAR AS RELIEF OF DECLARATION IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short
CPC) praying for setting aside the judgment and decree
dated 08.01.2010 passed in R.A.No.2/2007 on the file of II
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak (for short, 'First
Appellate Court') and to restore the judgment and decree
dated 30.11.2006 in O.S.No.302/2002 in granting the relief
of permanent injunction and confirming finding on the relief
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
of declaration; to set aside the judgment and decree passed
by the Additional Civil Judge, Gokak (for short, 'Trial Court')
in O.S.No.302/2002 insofar as the relief of declaration and
for such other reliefs.
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they
were before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit before Trial Court
praying for the relief of declaration that plaintiffs are
absolute owners of suit schedule property and consequently
grant relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendant from causing obstruction for the use and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also in
performing the Pooja and Jathra etc., in any manner; for
court costs and for such other reliefs.
4. The case of plaintiffs before the Trial Court in
nutshell is that suit schedule property bearing TMC No.464,
(correspondence No.409) consisting of Deity of Dyamawwa
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
as Sri Dyamawwa Temple situated within Town Municipal
limits of Konnur village, Gokak Taluk. Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are
sons and plaintiff No.4 is the wife of deceased Narayan
Ningappa Badiger. Father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 died in the
year 1995 at Konnur Village. After his death, plaintiffs were
his only legal heirs, who have succeeded to the suit
schedule property and other family properties. Father of
plaintiffs was given in adoption to one Ningappa Badiger.
After death of adopted father, the father of plaintiffs No.1 to
3 succeeded to the property. After his death, name of father
of plaintiffs No.1 to 3-Narayan entered in the revenue
records. After death of father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3, name
of plaintiffs is entered in the revenue records. Thus,
plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit schedule property and
are performing Pooja of Deity Dyamawwa. Grandfather of
plaintiffs No.1 to 3 has constructed the temple in suit
schedule property during the year 1858. He was performing
Pooja of Dyamawwa and also at Brahmadevaragudi, which
was situated at old TMC No.408 and present No.460. He
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
was celebrating jathra once in 5 years. The family of
plaintiffs invested huge amount for construction of temple
and idol. Defendant, who is in no way connected to the
family of plaintiffs or to the suit schedule property, has
given false varadi on 10.12.2000 alleging that her name
should be entered along with name of plaintiff No.1. After
receiving such an application, TMC, Konnur has issued
notice to plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 was busy with his
domestic work and thus could not appear before the TMC
Authorities. But, the TMC Authorities have passed
Resolution No.57 dated 29.11.2001 that this subject will be
discussed in the next meeting and without passing any
resolution, the TMC, Konnur has deleted the name of
plaintiff No.1 and entered the name of Dyamawwa Devara
Gudi. It is challenged by the plaintiffs before the Divisional
Commissioner, Belagavi. He has allowed the appeal and
remanded the matter for fresh inquiry.
5. In pursuance of the order, the TMC Authorities
have backdated the entry appearing as Dyamawwa Devara
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
Gudi and entered the name of plaintiff No.1 in the revenue
records. But without giving any opportunity and without
considering the documents of plaintiffs, in collusion with
defendant, the TMC Authorities have passed the Resolution
No.53 dated 01.01.2002 and again deleted the name of
plaintiff No.1 and entered the name 'Dyamawwa Devara
gudi'. None of the villagers of Konnur have given varadi to
make such entry. But only at the instance of defendant, this
happened. Plaintiffs are absolute owners, Vahivatdars and
performers of Pooja of Deity and performing all religious
rituals since from the time of their grandfather. Defendant
taking undue advantage of deleting the name of plaintiff
No.1 from records, illegally, unauthorizedly trying to oust
the plaintiffs from suit schedule property and also denied
the title of plaintiffs over suit schedule property. She has
given complaint before police authority in that regard.
Hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.
6. After service of summons, defendant appeared
through her counsel and filed her written statement,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
wherein she denied the plaint averments in toto except
admitting the relationship of plaintiffs No.1 to 4 with
deceased Narayan Ningappa Badiger. She admitted that the
temple was constructed in suit schedule property in the
year 1858. But denied all other averments in the plaint
regarding who constructed the temple and who is in
possession of it, who is performing Pooja, etc. The
defendant further has given genealogy of plaintiffs and
defendant that one Hanamant was the original propositus
having 4 children. The genealogy reads as under:
Hanamant
Revappa Sidram Kadappa Balappa
=Gangavva
Ningappa Kalavva
Hanamant w/o
Narayan =Gangavva Ramachandra Badiger
=Savitri of Fulagaddi.
Ratnavva (Deft.)
Ningappa Chandrakant Sanjiv
7. It is further pleaded that if plaintiffs able to
establish that their father was given in adoption, then they
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
will acquire 1/3rd right in the suit schedule property. But if
they fail to establish it, then they will have no right, title or
interest in or over the suit schedule property. Defendant is
the only daughter of Hanamant. Kalavva is the daughter of
Balappa. Defendant and Kalavva are performing Pooja at
Dyamawwa Devi Temple. It is under her management. She
is performing Pooja. She has got every right to perform it
and it is inherited by her from her ancestors. It is further
pleaded that plaintiffs are not performing Pooja as on the
date of filing of the suit or prior to it in suit schedule
property. Hence, they are not entitled for the relief of
declaration and injunction as prayed in the plaint. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of suit with costs.
8. From the above facts, the Trial Court has framed
following issues and additional issues:
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the
absolute owners and in possession of the suit
property?
2) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration
sought?
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
3) whether the plaintiffs prove that the deft.,
interferred with their possession?
4) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction?
5) What order or decree?
Addl.Issue No.1: Whether the plffs., prove that their
father has gone in adoption to one Ningappa Badiger?
No.2: Whether the defendant proves that she is having
1/3 share in the suit schedule Property?
9. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing the arguments, the Trial Court has partly decreed
the suit. Permanent injunction was granted to plaintiffs
against defendant. Defendant was restrained from
obstructing the use of suit schedule property and
performing Pooja by the plaintiffs. However, the suit in
respect of relief in respect of declaration of title of plaintiffs
is dismissed.
10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
defendant has filed R.A.No.2/2007. Said appeal was allowed
in part. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.302/2002
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
dated 30.11.2006 granting the relief of permanent
injunction to plaintiffs was set aside. The suit of plaintiffs
was dismissed in entirety. The cross-objection filed by the
plaintiffs was rejected. Aggrieved by the same,
plaintiffs/appellants are before this Court.
11. At the time of admitting the appeal, the
substantial question of law is formulated as follows:
"Whether the First Appellate Court has
committed a serious error in allowing the appeal
and dismissing the suit in which the relief of
permanent injunction had been granted by
ignoring the material evidence placed on
record?"
12. Heard arguments.
13. Learned counsel for appellants, Sri Dinesh M
Kulkarni would submit that the Trial Court and the First
Appellate court failed to consider the fact that Dyamawwa
Devi Temple is personal and absolute property of plaintiffs
and it is built by their grandfather in the year 1858, who
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
was performing Pooja. Both the Courts have not properly
appreciated the flow of title. Exs.P.13 and P.14 refer to the
transactions of 1926 and 1934. The existence of temple is
shown in these two documents and further name of
grandfather of plaintiffs No.1 to 3-Ningappa is found place
in the revenue records, which is not properly appreciated by
both the Courts. Plaintiffs have produced the registered
adoption deed and also mutation entry in respect of
adoption by the grandfather of plaintiffs. The First Appellate
Court and Trial Court have failed to appreciate the fact that
defendant has no locus standi to challenge the adoption of
father plaintiffs No.1 to 3 by their adopted grandfather-
Ningappa Badiger. They have not appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence in proper manner and cross-
examination of D.W.1 was not appreciated in accordance
with law. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
14. Even after giving sufficient opportunities, learned
counsel for respondent became continuously absent and not
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
submitted his arguments. Hence his arguments were taken
as heard.
15. The above substantial question of law is
answered in AFFIRMATIVE for the following:
REASONS
16. The contention of plaintiffs is that their
grandfather Ningappa Revappa Badiger was the absolute
owner in possession of the suit schedule property bearing
present No.464 and old No.406. Their grandfather has
constructed Dyamawwa temple in the suit schedule
property in the year 1858, performing pooja and he has
taken father of plaintiffs in adoption.
17. Defendant contended that she is the daughter of
Ningappa's brother and she has got full right over suit
schedule property and not plaintiffs. Her contention is that
only she and her senior uncle's daughter Kalavva are alive
in their family and she is performing Pooja in Dyamawwa
temple. She denied the relationship of plaintiffs with
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
deceased Ningappa. She has denied even the adoption of
father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3-Narayana by her senior uncle
Ningappa Revappa Badiger. Thus, this defendant
contended that the suit schedule property was and is never
in possession of plaintiffs.
18. To substantiate the contention that father of
plaintiffs No.1 to 3 is the adopted son of Ningappa Revappa
Badiger, plaintiffs mainly rely upon the oral evidence of
witnesses and also the certified copy of adoption deed
produced by them.
19. It is to be noted here that the defendant is not
the natural father and mother of Narayana or the adoptive
father and mother of Narayana. Only the natural parents or
adoptive parents can challenge this adoption and not by any
other person. Furthermore, plaintiffs have produced the
certified copy of adoption deed as per Ex.P.26 of the year
1926. This also clearly establishes that father of plaintiffs
No.1 to 3-Narayana was taken in adoption by Ningappa
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
Revappa Badiger. Furthermore, name of father of plaintiffs
No.1 to 3 Narayana Ningappa Badiger is categorically
admitted by defendant in her written statement. Anyway
the Trial Court considering these facts has rightly held that
father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3-Narayana is the adopted son of
Ningappa Revappa Badiger.
20. In this regard, this Court relies upon the
following judgments:
1. Veerabhadrayya R Hiremath and Others vs.
Irayya A.F. Basayya Hiremath reported in ILR
2006 KAR 1740, wherein it is held as follows:
"12. xxxxx
The appellant admits the execution of the
adoption deed taking the defendant in adoption by
Basayya. According to the appellant the adoption deed
as per Ex. D1 came into existence by playing fraud on
deceased Basayya. According to him, Basayya died six
years prior to the institution of the suit. It is also his
case that he came to know of adoption of the
defendant by Basayya in the year 1979. The suit was
filed in the year 1992. If Basayya died six years prior
to the institution of the suit, in all probabilities
Basayya was alive till 1986. If plaintiff had come to
know of the adoption deed in the year 1979, if really
adoption deed had been obtained by the defendant by
playing fraud on Basayya, there was no difficulty for
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
the appellant-plaintiff to request Basayya to challenge
the adoption deed contending that the same was
obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. But such an
action has not been taken by the plaintiff, requesting
Basayya to file a suit to challenge the adoption deed.
Admittedly, the suit is filed six years after the death of
Basayya and 13 years after coming to know of the
adoption of the defendant by Basayya. In the normal
circumstances, adoption can be challenged either by
the natural parents of the boy or by the adoptive
parents or by the child who has been given in
adoption. But in the instance case, the plaintiff is a
stranger to the defendant. If really, a fraud had been
played on Basayya, it was for Basayya to file a suit for
cancellation of the adoption. The very fact that the
plaintiff had not requested Basayya to file a suit for
cancellation on the ground that Ex. D1 had come into
existence on account of the fraud played by Police-Patil
of Astakatti village on Basayya, it is not open for the
plaintiff to challenge the adoption of defendant, six
years after the death of Basayya. In other words, this
Court is of the opinion there is no cause of action for
the plaintiff to file the suit."
2. Smt.Chandamma W/o Shankrappa Chalgeri
(since deceased by LRs.) vs. Channaveer in RSA
No.200036/2014 dtd. 10.10.2023, wherein it is held as
follows:
"31. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Veerabhadraiah R.Hiremath vs. Irayya
A.F. Basaiah Hiremath as stated supra, held that,
except the genitive parents, adoptive parents and the
adoptive son, others have no locus standi to question
the validity of the adoption deed. The principle laid
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is
squarely applicable to the instant case."
3. M.G.Purushotham (Since deceased by LRs.) vs.
N.K.Srinivasan (Since deceased by LRs.) in RSA
No.498/2007 dtd. 16.02.2024, wherein it is held as
follows:
"37. The adoption is also challenged by the
plaintiff, who is the brother of the husband of
Nanjamma and this Court in the judgment in
VEERABHDRAYYA R. HIREMATH (D) BY L.Rs. VS.
IRAYYA A.F. BASAYYA HIREMATH reported in
2006 A I H C 1734, held that except the adoptive
parents and adoptive son, others have no locus standi
to question the validity of the adoption deed. The
principles laid down by co-ordinate Bench of this
Court is squarely applicable to the instant case which
has been considered in the judgment of this Court in
R.S.A.NO.200036 OF 2014 dated 10.10.2023.
Hence, the plaintiff cannot question the adoption and
validity of the adoption deed and the plaintiff has no
locus standi to question the same. Hence, I answer
the substantial questions of law framed by this Court
accordingly that both the Courts committed an error
in rejecting the claim of defendant No.1 that he is an
adopted son and failed to consider both oral and
documentary evidence and after a long time i.e., 42
years, strict burden of proof for an adoption cannot
be insisted when presumption is available under
Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956 which I have already discussed."
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
21. Relying on the principles noted in the above
judgments, I am of the opinion that defendant not being the
natural or adoptive parents of deceased Narayana cannot
challenge his adoption.
22. The plaintiffs have produced the revenue
documents i.e., assessment register extract of suit schedule
property as per Exs.P.1 to P.3. In the plaint, plaintiffs
categorically stated that the number of suit schedule
property is 464 and its old number was 406. As per Ex.P.1,
property No.464 was standing in the name of plaintiff No.1.
23. It is an admitted fact that in the meanwhile the
name of first plaintiff was rounded off and name of
Dyamawwa Devara Gudi was inserted in the revenue
records, which is being challenged by plaintiffs and then it
was again renamed in the name of first plaintiff.
Subsequently also, revenue proceedings had taken place
and they were taken place in and around the time of filing
of suit. Hence, change of name of owner in the revenue
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
documents into the name of Sri Dyamawwa Devara Gudi is
having no consequence.
24. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of assessment
register extract for the year 1938-39-40-41 in respect of
properties bearing Nos.406, 407, 408 and 409. In property
No.406, name of Ningappa Revappa Badiger i.e., the
grandfather of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 is mentioned and not the
name of temple. As per Ex.P.3, after death of Ningappa
Revappa Badiger, this property was mutated into the name
of father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 Narayana Ningappa Badiger.
25. Plaintiffs have produced the Survival Certificate
as per Ex.P.11 to show that plaintiffs are the only legal heirs
of deceased Narayana Ningappa Badiger. They have also
produced mutation register extract as per M.E.No.719 to
show that survey number properties were mutated into the
name of Ningappa Revappa Badiger and then into the name
of Narayana Ningappa Badiger. In these documents, it is
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
clearly recited that Narayana, the father of plaintiff No.1 to
3 is the adopted son of Ningappa.
26. The contention of defendant is that she is in
possession of suit schedule property and conducting Pooja
in suit schedule property. To prove said contention,
defendant has not produced any material before the Court.
On the other hand, she has produced only the revenue
documents which were mutated as per the order of the
Tahasildar, which is later set aside as discussed above.
Furthermore, only based on oral evidence it cannot be said
that defendant is performing Pooja in suit schedule
property. It is the specific contention of plaintiffs that the
Pooja in Dyamawwa temple is being performed by male
members of the family and not females. Defendant being
the daughter in the family cannot perform the Pooja.
27. Considering these aspects, rightly, the Trial Court
has granted permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs. But
declaration as prayed by them was refused on the ground
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
that no admissible title documents are produced and there
is no pleading and proof regarding the alleged Will produced
by P.W.1 in his further examination-in-chief. There is no
whisper about the Will executed in favour of Ningappa by
one Parvatevva Tadasalla. But only in the evidence,
plaintiffs have produced certified copy of the Will as per
Ex.P.14. This is not pleaded and attestors to the Will are not
examined and original Will is not produced. For these
reasons, rightly, the Trial Court has not granted the relief of
declaration to plaintiffs.
28. The First Appellate Court has not considered the
oral and documentary evidence in respect of the relief of
permanent injunction but only held that as title is not
established plaintiffs are also not entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction, which is erroneous. At undisputed
point of time i.e. from 1938-1941, the name of Ningappa
Revappa Badiger is forthcoming in revenue extracts and
then, i.e., after his death, name of Narayana Ningappa
Badiger, the father of plaintiff No.1 to 3 is shown in respect
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
of suit schedule property for the period from 1946-49-50.
However, the First Appellate Court has only held that
reasons for entering their names in revenue records is not
established and thereby rejected the claim of plaintiffs.
29. It is to be noted here that it is name of first
plaintiff forthcoming in Ex.P.1, but his name is also
Ningappa and his grandfather's name is also Ningappa. By
confusing himself that said Ningappa shown in Ex.P.1 is the
grandfather of plaintiffs No.1 to 3, the First Appellate Court
wrongly come to the conclusion that how and on what basis
name of Ningappa came to be entered in Ex.P.1 and
thereby dismissed the claim of plaintiffs. Only after death of
father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3-Narayana, name of Ningappa
Narayana Badiger i.e. name of first plaintiff is entered in
Ex.P.1 that is also entered long back. Hence, the finding
and observation of First Appellate Court on this point is not
correct and erroneous and thus it requires interference.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
30. Thus, the First Appellate Court has committed
serious error in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit
in which the relief of permanent injunction granted by the
Trial Court without considering the material evidence placed
on record. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is
answered in 'AFFIRMATIVE'.
31. In view of the above discussion, I pass the
following:
ORDER
1. Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 is partly allowed by setting aside
the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010 passed
in R.A.No.2/2007 on the file of II Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Gokak by restoring the judgment and
decree dated 30.11.2006 in O.S.No.302/2002 on the
file of Additional Civil Judge, Gokak.
2. The permanent injunction granted in favour of
plaintiffs against the defendant by Trial Court is
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5195
HC-KAR
hereby confirmed. Further, as far as the prayer in
respect of declaration of title of plaintiffs is
concerned, the judgment and decree of Trial Court in
refusing the same is hereby confirmed.
3. Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SH
CT-MCK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
