Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5213 OF 2010 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. SAGAREPPA DEVARAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. GIRISH NAGAR, JAMAKHANDI-587301.…APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASH N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA BYAKOD, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KADAPATTI, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301.
2. SRI. JAGADISH S/O. KESHAV TUNGAL, DbBLHOKDB y oY E A i H FI g cG A N R G A i aH t H N I CR t aR i A l A H o W C lIT y n T J O A A T: A s U D I i K Ag R A .n T , e d 3. A R S G R /O I E . . : M J 5 A A 7 M L Y L A E A K A P H P R A A S N , S D O / I O C -5 .C 8 N : 7 I A 3 N D 0 G V 1 A O . P C P A A T B E Y , AKOD, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KADAPATTI, JAMAKHANDI-587301.
DECEASED ON 08.10.2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.10.2016 LR’S APPLICATION IS ALLOWED AND LR’S ARE
3(A) SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. MALLAPPA BYAKOD, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3(B) GAJANANA S/O. MALLAPPA BYAKOD, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3(C) SHRISHAIL S/O. MALLAPPA BYAKOD, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, ALL ARE R/O. KUDACHI ROAD, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301.
5. THE TAHASILDAR, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT-587301.…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;SRI. SOURABH A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R4-R6; R3(A)-HELD SUFFICIENT; R3(B)-SERVED)
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
---THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH 106 OF C.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:24/11/2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.24/2007 BY THE FAST TRACK COURT, JAMAKHANDI AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:22/02/2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.132/1994 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), JAMAKHANDI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND ETC.THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is the appeal filed under Section 100 read with Section 106 CPC, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2009 passed in R.A.No.24/2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’, for short), and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007 passed in O.S. No.132/1994 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Jamakhandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first Appellate Court’, for short), and to allow the appeal and decree the suit of the plaintiff.
2. The parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The brief facts of the case are;
3.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit before Trial Court, praying for specific performance of the agreement in his favour in respect of his half share in the suit schedule property, and alternatively for a decree awarding ₹19,000/- by way of damages and for such other reliefs.
3.2. The suit schedule property is measuring East-West 100 feet and North-South 100 feet portion (approximately 10 guntas), out of the South- eastern portion of the middle strip measuring 1 acre 17 guntas of Sy.No.78/2 of Jamakhandi belonging to defendant No.1.
3.3. It is the contention of the plaintiff that there was an agreement between the plaintiff, defendant No.2, and defendant No.1 on 01.07.1987, wherein defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of ₹38,000/- by receiving an advance amount of ₹10,000/-, and agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of both the plaintiff and defendant No.2 after fulfilling certain terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement.
3.4. It is the further contention of plaintiff that he and defendant No.2 were friends and advocates by profession, and thus he believed defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 was requested to take all the responsibilities of the terms and conditions of the suit agreement, and defendant No.2 has taken a Special Power of Attorney from defendant No.1 in the year 1993. After fulfilling all the terms and conditions, and after obtaining the property in the name of defendant No.1, defendant No.1, in collusion with defendant No.2, entered into a sale transaction. Defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the entire 1 acre 17 guntas belonging to him. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the brothers of defendant No.1 and were made as formal parties to the suit. The plaintiff has narrated the terms and conditions of the agreement in detail in the plaint.
3.5. The plaintiff further contended that he, along with defendant No.1 & 2, is in possession of the suit schedule property. Defendants are trying to dispossess him by creating evidence of possession entirely in favour of defendant No.2. The plaintiff requested defendant Nos.1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in his name in respect of his share in the property, but they refused and ignored his request and rights. Hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.
3.6. After service of summons, defendant No.1 filed his written statement, wherein he denied the plaint averments in toto. He contended that the suit schedule property is the subject matter before the Land Tribunal, Jamakhandi, as the entire R.S.No.78/2 is Inam land and it belongs to defendant No.1 along with his co-owners, defendant Nos.3 and 4, who are the sons of Ningappa Byakod, and there is no division by demarcation of their shares. He further denied the sui
