Dismissed

Shri.Sadashiv S/O Bhima Dalawayi v. Shri.Narashinhrao Shriniwasrao Inamadar @

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2024RSA/100023/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a regular second appeal filed by defendants challenging a decree declaring plaintiffs absolute owners of land and directing handover of possession. The court found the decree was already executed via an execution petition, the terms fully satisfied, and appellants failed to show any error in concurrent findings.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as being devoid of merit at the stage of admission itself.

Shri.Sadashiv S/O Bhima Dalawayi Vs Shri.Narashinhrao… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9961 RSA No. 100023 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100023 OF 2016 (DEC-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI.SADASHIV S/O BHIMA DALAWAYI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BHIRADI, TQ:RAIBAG DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶10

SMT. DUNDAWWA W/O ANNAPPA DALAWAYI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O:BHIRADI TQ:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶11

SHRI APPASAHEB S/O ANNAPPA DALAWAYI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BHIRADI, TQ:RAIBAG DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶12

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶13

SHRI BHIMAPPA S/O ANNAPPA DALAWAYI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BHIRADI, TQ: RAIBAG DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶14

SHRI BASAPPA S/O ANNAPPA DALAWAYI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BHIRADI, TQ:RAIBAG DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶15

SHRI MAHADEV S/O KALLAPPA DALAWAYI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:BHIRADI, TQ:RAIBAG DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶16

SHRI SATTEPPA S/O KALLAPPA DALAWAYI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:BHIRADI, TQ:RAIBAG DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9961 RSA No. 100023 of 2016

¶19

SHRI RAJU S/O KALLAPPA DALAWAYI AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:BHIRADI, TQ: RAIBAG

¶20

DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. A.R.PATIL & B.S.WODEYAR, ADVOCATES)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SHRI. NARASHINHRAO SHRINIWASRAO INAMADAR @ BHIRADIKAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶25

1A) SHRI SANTUNU S/O NARASHINHRAO INAMADAR @ BHIRADIKAR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O:684 "E" SECOND LANE, SHAHAPURI, KOLHAPUR-416001 MAHARASHTRA

¶26

1B) SMT. PADMA NARASHINHRAO INAMADAR @ BHIRADIKAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O:684 "E" SECOND LANE, SHAHAPURI, KOLHAPUR-416001, MAHARASHTRA.

¶27

1C) SMT.VEENA VINAYAK DESHPANDE AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIFE, R/O:BUNGALOW NO.7, RANJIT NAGAR, KARAD, DIST:SATARA-415110.

¶28

1D) SMT.RAGINI W/O NITIN PRABHUENE AGE:43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O:C-202, TREASURE PARK, SANT NAGAR, PADMABVATI, PUNE-411009

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO D)

¶31

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSIED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG IN R.A.NO.22/2013 DATED 07.09.2015 AND O.S.NO.425/2008 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, (JR.DN.), JMFC, RAIBAG DATED 06.07.2013 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9961 RSA No. 100023 of 2016

¶34

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This Court vide order dated 27.06.2024, ordered as follows:

¶37

‘‘Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and seeks for a further accommodation to place the settlement in record.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondents No.1(a to d) vehemently disputes the submission made regarding settlement and submits that the suit for declaration, possession and injunction having been decreed by the Trial Court which decree having been affirmed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs who were the respondents herein filed execution petition to execute the said decree and the decree of the Trial Court has been executed and the execution petition has been closed as having been satisfied. Hence, he submits that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. That nothing further survives for consideration in the present appeal and seeks for the above appeal to be dismissed.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks for a further accommodation to secure instructions and make his submissions.

¶40

As a final chance, call on 18.07.2024.’’

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9961 RSA No. 100023 of 2016

¶42

It is forthcoming that the suit for declaration and

¶43

injunction with the alternative relief of possession has been decreed by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 06.07.2013, wherein the plaintiff has been declared to be the absolute owner of the land and the defendants have been directed to hand over the possession of the encroached portion of 32 guntas of land, which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Being aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure¹

¶44

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo placing on record that the respondents/ plaintiffs filed EP.No.60/2016 to execute the judgment and decree passed in OS No.425/2008, which has been affirmed in RA No.22/2013.

¶45

4. Along with the memo, the learned counsel for the respondents have filed a certified copy of the order sheet in EP. No.60/2016 which discloses that the executing Court has ordered for issue of delivery warrant on the 31.01.2019, and the same has been executed, which has been taken on record

¶46

as is forthcoming from the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by

¶47

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9961 RSA No. 100023 of 2016

¶49

¶50

the executing Court. That vide the said order dated 20.01.2022, the executing Court has disposed of the execution petition as the terms of the decree are fully satisfied.

¶51

5. It is further forthcoming that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have recorded a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and that the defendants have encroached an extent of 32 guntas of land.

¶52

6. The appellants have failed in demonstrating that the said concurrent finding is in any manner erroneous as having been recorded without considering any specific oral or documentary material on record. Hence, the appellants have failed in demonstrating that any substantial question arises for consideration in the present appeal.

¶53

7. In view of the aforementioned, the above appeal is

¶54

dismissed as being devoid of merit at the stage of admission itself.

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

PJ CT:GSM

Shri.Sadashiv S/O Bhima Dalawayi v. Shri.Narashinhrao Shriniwasrao Inamadar @

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Sadashiv S/O Bhima Dalawayi v. Shri.Narashinhrao Shriniwasrao Inamadar @

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanumantappa S/O. Mallappa Kuppelur Vs Hanumantappa S/O. Rangappa Tippannavar

Sri L Venkateshappa Vs Sri K Guleppa

Gayatri W/O Basavaraj Dambal Vs Paramma W/O Basanagouda Girigoudar

Yallappagouda @ Yallappa Vs Timmanagouda @ Timmanna

Sri. Sadashiva S/O. Appu Saradar Vs Sri. Dhulappa S/O. Annappa Khot

Sri. Basappa S/O Fakirappa Sanningammanavar Vs Sri. Gurupad S/O Kallappa Sanningammanavar