Dismissed

Anita W/O Anant Kakatikar v. Kashiram Maruti Juvekar

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024RSA/100663/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the regular second appeal filed by defendants. It held that mere possession under an agreement of sale does not confer title. Since the plaintiff's ownership was undisputed, the appeal lacked merit. The lower appeal was confirmed but possession was allowed within six months. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; lower appellate decree confirmed; six months time granted to hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff upon filing an undertaking.

Anita W/O Anant Kakatikar Vs Kashiram Maruti Juvekar — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12805 RSA No. 100663 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100663 OF 2023 (POS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ANITA W/O ANANT KAKATIKAR AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H.NO.179/1, TAHASILDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶10

ABHAY S/O ANANT KAKATIKAR AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. H.NO.179/1, TAHASILDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶11

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

¶12

NISHA D/O ANANT KAKATIKAR AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H.NO.179/1, TAHASILDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶13

(BY SRI VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

AND:

¶16

KASHIRAM MARUTI JUVEKAR SINCE DECEASED R/BY BY HIS LRS I.E. THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5

¶17

ANJANA KASHIRAM JUVEKAR AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O.216, TAHASILDAR GALLI,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12805 RSA No. 100663 of 2023

¶19

DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

¶20

SUREKHA ANANT PATADE AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O.216, TAHASILDAR GALLI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶21

UMA PRAKASH BADMANJI AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O.216, TAHASILDAR GALLI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶22

DEEPAK KASHIRAM JUVEKAR AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O.216, TAHASILDAR GALLI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶23

PRADEEP KASHIRAM JUVEKAR AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.TAHASILDAR GALLI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶24

DATTATRAYA MARUTI JUVEKAR AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TAHASILDAR GALLI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶25

DNYANDEV MARUTI JUVEKAR AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TAHASILDAR GALLI DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶26

NARAYAN DUNDAPPA JUVEKAR AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TAHASILDAR GALLI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R1 TO R8)

¶29

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BELAGAVI IN R.A.NO. 119/2022 DATED 21.04.2023 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2022 IN O.S.NO.314/2016 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI.

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12805 RSA No. 100663 of 2023

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

The second appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.119/2022 dated 21.04.2023 on the file of the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first appellate Court’) and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.314/2016 dated 20.07.2022 on the file of the VI Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

¶34

The trial Court dismissed the suit and the first appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for possession. Therefore, the defendants have preferred second appeal before this Court.

¶35

For the purpose of convenience, ranking of the

¶36

parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12805 RSA No. 100663 of 2023

¶38

The plaintiff by pleading in the plaint that he is

¶39

the owner of the suit property and defendants are in possession over the property, therefore, filed suit for possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to handover vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the second appeal.

¶40

It is not disputed that plaintiff is owner of the suit property. It is the case of defendants that his father by virtue of agreement of sale was in possession of the suit property and the defendants succeeded in possession from their father and therefore, the defendants are in settled possession of property for more than 40 years. This is the only case made out by the defendants. Defendants have not disputed the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The defendants themselves have claimed that they are in possession over the property by

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12805 RSA No. 100663 of 2023

¶42

virtue of agreement of sale from time of their father. Though the defendants are in possession for more than 40 years, but agreement of sale does not confer title or ownership on the defendants. The plaintiff is owner of the suit property is not disputed. Therefore, the plaintiff by filing suit for possession and following due process of law has obtained decree which cannot be said that illegal or unjustified one. Therefore, the first appellate Court is correct and justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff directing the defendants to handover vacant possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit for consideration much less no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. RSA No.100663/2023 is dismissed.

¶45

ii. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.119/2022 dated 21.04.2023 on the file of

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12805 RSA No. 100663 of 2023

¶47

the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi is confirmed. However, the appellants/defendants are given six months time to handover vacant possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants shall file affidavit of undertaking in this regard before this Court within

¶48

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of

¶49

certified copy of this order.

¶50

iii. Draw decree accordingly.

¶51

iv. No order as to costs.

¶52

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶53

KGK CT:GSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

Anita W/O Anant Kakatikar v. Kashiram Maruti Juvekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita W/O Anant Kakatikar v. Kashiram Maruti Juvekar

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

Sri. Bommanni Channabasappa Vs Smt. Ittagi Ratnamma W/O Late Ittagi Ningappa

Basavanneppa S/O Moogappa Udakeri, Vs Somappa Mugappa Udakeri

Sri.Sharanappa S/O. Shivappa Angadi, Vs Sri. Shekharagouda S/O. Ninganagouda Jakkanagoudra

Sri D Pampapathi S/O Late D N Hanumanthappa Vs Barikara Yeriyappa S/O Hanumanthappa

Subhaschandra Bose Vs Bobbavali Kumari

Shri.Shankarayya Vs Smt.Chambawwa