Advocates:
['JAGADISH PATIL', 'K ANAND', '', '', 'R : TAMANNA - HELD SUFFICIENT', '', 'R : SHANKAR - HELD SUFFICIENT', 'R : SHIVAPPA-HELD SUFFICIENT', 'R : VIRUPAXI - SD', 'R : MALAKAJI- HELD SUFFICIENT', 'R : NAGAPPA - HELD SUFFICIENT']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIERSH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1491/2006 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT. NEELAWWA W/O DYAMAPPA GADAGI

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK

R/O BETASUR, TAL: SAUNDATTI

DISTRICT: BELGAUM 590 001

2.

SMT. SHIVALINGAWWA W/O KALLAPPA

KANNALLI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

REST 3DO-

&APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.C.S.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE

FOR SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SRI TAMMANNA W/O RAMAPPA CHANAKOTI

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BETASUR

TAL: SAUNDATTI, DISTRICT: BELGAUM 590 001

2.

SRI SHANKAR S/O RAMAPPA CHANAKOTI

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

REST 3DO-

3.

SRI SHIVAPPA S/O RAMAPPA CHANAKOTI

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

REST 3DO-

2

4.

SRI VIRUPAXI S/O RAMAPPA CHANAKOTI

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

REST 3DO-

5.

SRI MALAKAJI S/O RAMAPPA CHANAKOTI

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

REST 3DO-

6.

SRI NAGAPPA S/O RAMAPPA CHANAKOTI

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

REST 3DO-

&RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE TO R1 TO R3, R5 & R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT,

NOTICE TO R4 SERVED)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 100 OF THE CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.2.2006 PASSED IN

R.A.NO.57/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN),

SAUNDATTI, IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

DT.23.09.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.88/1998 ON THE FILE OF

THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), SAUNDATTI AND CONFIRM THE

SAME, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR

FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in Original Suit

No.88 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Saundatti

(for short hereinafter referred to as 8trial Court9) decreeing the

suit of the plaintiffs, and being aggrieved by the same,

defendants filed Regular Appeal No.57 of 2005 before the Civil

3

Judge (Sr.Dn.), Saundatti (for short hereinafter referred to as

8First Appellate Court9), which came to be allowed, setting

aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this

appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants

for permanent injunction contending that the portion of the

schedule property mentioned in the sketch appended to

plaint, is in dispute. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the

said property belonged to their father and after his demise,

the plaintiffs, being daughters, succeeded to the suit schedule

property and they are in possession of the suit schedule

property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants,

without any right, title and interest over the property in

question,

are

interfering

with

the

plaintiffs9

peaceful

enjoyment of the suit schedule property and therefore, have

filed Original Suit No.88 of 1998 on the file of the trial Court.

The defendants entered appearance, filed detailed written

statement and disputed the title of the plaintiffs insofar as

portion of the property in question. The trial Court framed

issues for its consideration. Parties to the suit adduced

4

evidence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, after

considering the material on record, by its judgment and

decree dated 23^rd September, 2005 decreed the suit of the

plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have

filed first appeal in Regular Appeal No.57 of 2005 on the file of

the First Appellate Court. The plaintiffs entered appearance

and resisted the appeal. The First Appellate Court, after

considering the material on record, by its judgment and

decree dated 27^th February, 2006 allowed the appeal and

thereby set aside the judgment and decree dated 23^rd

September, 2005 passed by the Trial Court in OS No.88 of

1998.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed

by the first Appellate Co