SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19090

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P.SANDESH AND B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MRS.SHOBHA – Appellant
Versus
MR.SANGAPPA – Respondent
RFA 100278/2016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100278 OF 2016 BETWEEN:

SMT. SHOBHA W/O ASHOK BELAMKAR, AGED ABOUT: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NO.38, BANKERS COLONY, LAXMIPUR, SIDDARUDHAMATH, OLD-HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580028.

… APPELLANT (BY SRI S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.K. SANNINGMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MR. SANGAPPA S/O BASAVANNEPPA BURADI @ HULAMANI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC.

AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHOGENAGARKOPPA, Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-

Location: HIGH COURT OF 581204.

KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date:

2 1 0 5 2 :3 6 3 .0 :3 4 4 .0 + 8 0530 2. MR. MANJUNATH S/O BASAVANNEPPA BURADI @ HULAMANI, AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS, OCC:

AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHOGENAGARKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-

581204.

3. MR. FAKKIRAPPA S/O BASAVANNEPPA BURADI @ HULAMANI, AGED ABOUT: 28 YEARS, OCC:

AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHOGENAGARKOPPA, TQ:

KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204.

4. MR.VEERAPAKSHAPPA S/O BASAVANNEPPA BURADI @ HULAMANI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC:

AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHOGENAGARKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-

581204.

5. MRS. NEELAVVA W/O BASAVANNEPPA BURADI @ HULAMANI, AGED ABOUT: 58 YEARS, OCC:

AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHOGENAGARKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-

581204.

6. MR. BASAVANNEPPA S/O SANGAPPA BURADI @ HULAMANI, AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, OCC:

AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHOGENAGARKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-

581204.

DIED LEAVING BEHIND RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 AS HIS LEGAL HEIRS. 7. MR. KURSHID AHMED S/O IBRAHIMSAB KALAGHATAGI, AGED ABOUT: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: APMC, ISHWARNAGAR, HUBBALLI-

580031.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.G. NANDOOR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.C. CHAKALABBI AND SRI S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R4;

NOTICE ISSUED TO R5 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED (V/O/DATED

05.03.2026, R1 TO R5 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R6);

APPEAL AGAINST R7 STANDS DISMISSED (V/O DATED 08.01.2020 AND 16.03.2023)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., PRAYING THAT, JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:08.09.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.60/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HUBBALLI, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF WITH COSTS AND ETC.,.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.03.2026, THIS DAY, B. MURALIDHARA PAI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016 passed in O.S. No.60/2010 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli, (hereinafter referred as ‘the Trial Court’) by Defendant No.3 therein.

2. The parties to the proceeding are referred herein with their original ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs namely Sri Sangappa and four others maintained the suit in O.S. No.60/2010 for the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3 on 26.05.2005 is not binding on their share and consequently for the relief of permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.3 and any other person claiming through her from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over schedule A1 property. The plaintiffs have also sought for partition and separate possession of their 1/5th share each in the schedule properties.

4. Initially, the plaintiffs confined their suit to two items of property, namely, the lands bearing R.S. No. 249 measuring 10 acres and R.S. No. 246 measuring 13 acres, both situated at Kurdikeri Village, Hubli Taluk. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs obtained leave to amend the plaint and incorporated an additional property, viz., the residential house along with the adjoining open space bearing VPC No. 44 situated at Bogenaragakoppa in Kalaghatagi Taluk.

5. The suit summons was served

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top