IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.309 OF 2006 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA PAINTS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS GOKUL ORAD, HUBBALLI, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. H. BASAVARAJ, AGE: 67 YEARS, R/O. NO. C-37, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, YASHAVANT A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES NARAYANKAR ACT, 1956, BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, Digitally signed by ADMINSITRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR INDL. ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, Date: 2025.11.18

10:35:33 +0530 BENGALURU-560010.

2. CHIEF MANAGER K.S.S.I.D.C. INDUSTRAIL ESTATE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020.

3. N.S. KRISHNA AGE: 60 YEARS, CHIEF MANAGER, KSIDC, R/O. NO. 33, 2^ND MAIN, J.B. KAWAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, INDUSTRIAL WORKERS LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096.

4. SMT. N.V. S. PHANI W/O. N.S. KRISHNA, AGE: 53 YEARS, R/O. NO. 33, 2^ND MAIN, J.B. KAWAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, INDUSTRIAL WORKERS LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560010.

…RESPONDENTS (R1-HELD SUFFICIENT; R2-NOTICE SERVED;

R3 AND R4-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDE SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.11.2005 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (S.D.) HUBBALLI IN R.A.NO.313/2002 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.10.2002 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.) HUBBALLI IN O.S.NO.119/1996 HOLDING THAT THE 4^TH RESPONDENT IS DECLARED TO BE THE OWNER IN RESPECT OF THE PORTION OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE LAND, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI )

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

None appears for the respondent.

2. This Court notices that despite issuance of Court notice to the respondents, they have not appeared before this Court. The substantial question of law that was framed on

26.09.2006 reads as below:

“Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court holding that defendant-4 is the owner of the area when there was no claim in respect of the said property?”

3. The factual background of this second appeal may be summarized as below:

4. The plaintiff happens to be a registered partnership firm and has a small scale industry. The respondent No.1- KSSIDC is established for promoting and assisting the small scale industries in the State of Karnataka. Under one of the schemes formulated by the defendant No.1, an industrial shed with factory building and open site bearing No.C37 in CTS No.4782 at MTS industrial Estate Hubli, measuring 91 ft east- west and 54 ft north-south bounded by the road on east and north and other industrial sites on the remaining sides, was given on lease to the plaintiff under a lease deed dated 15.10.1988. Later, the said property was sold in favour of the plaintiff’s partnership firm under registered sale deed dated 29.03.1990 for a valuable consideration. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since then and he became the absolute owner since the date of the sale deed. Later, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement of lease with the wife of defendant No.3/Deputy Manager, KSSIDC in respect of an area measuring 8 ft x 10 ft. While the defendant No.3 was working under the defendant No.1, a small building was also constructed on the western side of the site measuring 8 ft x 10 ft in suit property wherein a Xerox machine etc., was placed and business was carried on. However, that was given up later. Being aggrieved by the said allotment to the defendant No.4, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.703/1992 seeking mandatory injunction for allotment of the open site, which is part of the suit property, in favour of the plaintiff. The said s