IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

R.S.A.NO.100249 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN

1 . SRI. BASAVARAJ

S/O. REVANAPPA GALAGALI

AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,

OCC: PENSIONER,

R/AT MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE,

ALSO AT T-24, VRINDAVAN PARK,

KUTAGI ROAD, SOLAPUR,

MAHARASTRA

2 . SMT. SHUBHADHA

W/O. KALYANIDEVI HOSUR,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/AT T 24, VRINDAVAN PARK,

KUTAGI ROAD, SOLAPUR,

MAHARASTRA

3 . SMT. SUREKHA

W/O. BASAVARAJ GEDDALMARI,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/AT NAVANAGAR,

BAGALKOTE

4 . SRI. SUHIL

S/O. BASAVARAJ GALAGALI,

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,

R/AT: MUDHOL,

DIST: BAGALKOTE

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV.)

2

AND

1 . SMT. PARVATEWWA

W/O RAMAPPA KATTIMANI,

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

R/AT BELAGALI VILLAGE,

TQ: MUDHOL-587313

DIST: BAGALKOTE

2 . SRI. SHEKHAR

S/O RAMAPPA KATTIMANI,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/AT BELAGALI, TQ: MUDHOL-587313

DIST: BAGALKOTE

3 . SMT. KASTURI

W/O LAXMAN KATTIMANI,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/AT SHIVAJI CIRCLE,

SBH ROAD, MUDHOL-587313

DIST: BAGALKOTE

4 . SMT. ANNAPURNA

W/O DEVARAJ HADAPAD,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK

R/AT SECTOR 4,

RAMANATH APPARTMENT,

WORLI, MUMBAI,

MAHARASTRA-400002

5 . SMT. SHUBHANGI

W/O VIJAYKUMAR KATTIMANI,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK

R/AT DEEPJYOTI APPARTMENT,

HUTAGI ROAD,SOLAPUR,

MAHARASTRA-400003

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION100 OF CPC,

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

3

PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

JMFC, MUDHOL PASSED IN RA NO.26/2019 DATED

19.12.2019 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL

JDUGE

AND

JMFC.,

MUDHOL

PASSED

IN

O.S.NO.311/2017 DATED 26.03.2019 ON IA NO.I

FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC AND

DECREE THE SUIT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

: JUDGMENT :

The present second appeal is filed by the

appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of CPC

challenging the judgment and decree passed in

RA No.26/2019 dated 19.12.2019 by Addl.

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Mudhol which has

confirmed the order in OS No.311/2017 dated

26.03.2019 passed by Prl. Civil Judge and

JMFC., Mudhol.

4

2.

For the sake of convenience, the status of

the parties shall be referred as before the trial

Court.

3.

Brief facts of the case:

It is stated that there was a partition in

the family of the appellants and respondents

and accordingly, the said partition was effected

and acted upon between the appellants and

respondents. It is stated that suit property

adjoins the property of the appellants/plaintiffs

on Northern side. It was an arrangement made

at the time of partition and also agreed

between all the sharers that if, any of the

sharer wants to sell his property, he must sell

the same to the adjoining owner who offers

highest price. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 offered

to sell the suit property and appellants offered

to

purchase

the

suit

property

for

Rs.

2,00,000/-. But, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were

5

not in good relation with the appellants and

hence sold the property to the respondent

No.3. Therefore, the suit is filed by the

appellants on the basis of right of preemption

to declare the sale deed executed by the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the

respondent

No.3

is

not

binding

on

the

appellants and the sale deed is to be declared

as

null

and

void

and

further

sought

for

direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to

execute

the

sale

deed

in

favour

of

the

appellants by receiving sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have

filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d)

of CPC seeking rejection of plai