IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100207 OF 2018 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SHRI TIMMAPPA GOVIND NAIK AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANDIGON VILLAGE-581334, TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI NARAYAN PARAMESHWAR NAIK AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. NWKRTC EMPLOYEE (RETIRED), R/O. BJATLA; DEKPOT, NOW RESIDING AT ALIVEKODE-581334, TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.

YASHAVANT 2. SMT. BALIYAMMA KOM MASTI MURKI NARAYANKAR AGE: 74 YEARS, Digitally signed by R/O. HANDIGON VILLAGE-581334, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR TQ. KUMTA, DIST. UTTATA KANNADA.

Date: 2025.10.27 10:44:12 +0530 …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2-NOTICE SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUMTA, IN R.A.NO.90/2007 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.06/1998 DATED 10.08.2007, BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AT KUMTA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.6/1998 is before this Court questioning the correctness of the dismissal of the suit as well as the First Appeal.

3. The factual aspect relevant for disposal of this appeal is that the plaintiff/appellant contends to be the owner in possession of Survey No.130 measuring an extent of 11 gunta out of 2 acre 33 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 04.09.1995 through GPA holder/Ganpathi Naik. It is his contention that the property was owned by one Shankar Purushottam Ankola. The plaintiff contended that as per the sale deed, M.E.No.4393 dated 10.10.1995 came to be effected and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit schedule property was adjacent to the remaining properties bearing Nos.129/1, 192/2, 128/2C and 128/2B belonging to the plaintiff. At the time of the court proceedings, defendant No.1, in collusion with defendant No.2, obstructed the plaintiff and therefore, there was a necessity for him to file the suit for injunction.

4. The defendants raised the contention that the claim of the plaintiff over his property on the basis of the sale deed executed by the GPA holder itself is fallacious and in fact the alleged GPA holder of Shankar Purushottam Ankola had died in the year 1976, and therefore, the alleged GPA, which was allegedly executed in the year 1994, is a fake and bogus one. Therefore, they contended that the plaintiff has no locus-standi to claim any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property and as such his claim for injunction is not sustainable in law. On the basis of the above contentions, appropriate issues were framed by the Trial Court and evidence was led. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief on the ground that the alleged claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property emanates from a sale deed, which in itself is non-est. The Trial Court in paragraphs 36 and 37 holds as below.

“36. It was the submission of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, one Sri. Shankar Purushottam, has executed a G.P.A. in favour of one Sri. Ganapati Jattappa Naik, as per Ex.P16. But, the very aspect of execution of the said G.P.A. ahs been denied and disputed by the Defendants as the said Sri. Shankar Purushottam, who is also called as Shankar Purushottam Ankola expired on 23-7-1976. In this regard, the 1^st Defendant has produced the Certificate of Death as per Ex.D33. On consideration, the said G.P.A. came to be executed on 30-4-1994. In this regard, it was the submission of the learned defence Counsel, subsequent to the death of the said Sri. Shankar Purushottam Ankola, the Plaintiff in collusion with his relative by name Sri. Ganapati Jattappa Naik, has created