Karnataka High Court
Mageppa vs Satteppa on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
RFA No. 100118 of 2016
C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100118 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100090 OF 2016
IN RFA NO.100118 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOTU @ SAMEER MADHUKAR DESHPANDE,
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BRAHMANPURI,
MIRAJ-416416, DISTRICT SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-STATE.
- APPELLANT
(BY SMT. BHARATI G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SATTEPPA BALAPPA KARIGAR,
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. SRI. BASAPPA BALAPPA KARIGAR,
AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O. ALAKHANUR, NOW AT BADBYAKUD,
Digitally signed TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 3. SMT. BAGAWWA W/O. SIDDAAPPA BAGI,
Location: High
Court of AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
4. SMT. LAKKAWWA W/O. SATTEPPA PUJARI,
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O. ALAKHANUR,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
5. SRI. MAGEPPA BASALINGAPPA THAKKANNAVAR,
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BADBYAKUD,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
RFA No. 100118 of 2016
C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.96 R/W. ORDER
XLI RULE 1 & 2 OF THE CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 02.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S. NO.75/2012, BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG & ETC.
IN RFA NO. 100090 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MAGEPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA THAKKANNAVAR,
AGE 45 Y EARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BADBYAKUD
VILLAGE, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
- APPELLANT
(BY SMT. P. G. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SATTEPPA S/O. BALAPPA KARIGAR,
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAKHANUR VILLAGE, NOW AT BADBYAKUD,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. BALAPPA KARIGAR,
AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALAKHANUR VILLAGE, NOW AT BADBYAKUD,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. BAGAWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA BAGI,
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAKHANUR
VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. LAKKAWWA W/O. SATTEPPA PUJARI,
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAKHANUR
VILLAGE, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI. GOTU @ SAMEER S/O. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE,
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BRAHMANPURI,
MIRAJ-416416, DIST: SANGLI, MAHARASTRA-STATE.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 SERVED)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.96 R/W. ORDER
XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 02.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S. NO.75/2012 BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG & ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242
RFA No. 100118 of 2016
C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 75/2012 dated 02.02.2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag.
2. Brief facts of this case are that plaintiffs are stated to be tenants of R.S. No. 88 totally measuring 20 acres 4 guntas of Badabyakud village of Raibag Taluk. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 was the landlord of the said property. Defendant No.1 said to have executed agreement of sale dated 23.12.2002 in favour of defendant No.2-Mageppa Basalingappa Thakkannavar agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs.2,00,000/- and received Rs.50,000/- as advance. It is said that defendant No.1 failed to execute the sale deed. Therefore the defendant No.2 filed O.S. No. 91/2005 seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract. Defendants No.1 and 2 were said to be parties in the said litigation. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242 RFA No. 100118 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016
3. It is further stated that during the pendency of O.S. No. 91/2005. The parties settled the dispute and joint compromise petition was filed dated 23.03.2005. By virtue of the said compromise, O.S. No. 91/2005 was decreed on 23.03.2005 before the Lok Adalath. It appears thereafter the plaintiffs herein filed appeal in R.A. No. 214/2008 challenging the decree passed in O.S. No. 91/2005 before the learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Belagavi. The said appeal was said to be dismissed on merits on the ground of maintainability. Thereafter that litigation ended there itself.
4. Thereafter the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 75/2012 filed the said suit praying the relief of declaration, to declare them as owners, in possession of the suit property by holding that compromise decree dated 23.03.2005 in O.S. No. 91/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gokak sitting at Raibag, is null and void and not binding on them and for restraining the defendants or anybody claiming through or under them from interefering with the peaceful -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242 RFA No. 100118 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016 possession, use and enjoyment of the suit property by way of injunction.
5. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and appreciating the pleadings and evidence disposed of the suit O.S. No. 75/2012 by impugned judgment and decree dated 02.02.2006. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in part. The compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 91/2005 on the file of this Court dated 23.03.2005 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. It is also ordered that the defendants and their men were restrained from disturbing the possession of the suit lands by the plaintiffs, by way of permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by the same, both the defendants No.1 and 2 filed the above said two appeals.
6. It is pertinent to note that the dispute of tenancy is pending between the plaintiffs herein as well as the defendants No.1 and 2 before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal decided the said dispute on 04.08.2011 granting occupancy right in respect of R.S. No. 88 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242 RFA No. 100118 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016 measuring 20 acres 4 guntas in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 75/2012.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Land Tribunal, both defendants No.1 and 2 filed two writ petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 66107/2011 c/w W.P. No. 106448/2016. The Writ Court considering the contentions of the parties on merits decided the matter by order dated 05.07.2023 and both the writ petitions were dismissed. In the said writ proceedings also the parties to the litigation referred the judgment passed in O.S. No. 91/2005 as well as the O.S. No. 75/2012, which is noted in the order passed in the writ proceedings referred supra.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals submits that the writ petitioner in both the Writ Petitions have filed appeals in W.A. No. 100659/2023 and W.A. No. 100485/2023 and are pending before the Division Bench of this Court for consideration. There is no dispute regarding the above said factual matrix. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242 RFA No. 100118 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016
9. Looking to the contentions of both the parties the rights of the parties could be decided only after final adjudication of tenancy dispute. If the plaintiffs herein succeed in the pending dispute then the question of defendant No.1 executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 or transfer of right by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 do not arise. Therefore whatever the final adjudication of dispute by the Land Tribunal will have a direct impact on the rights of the parties in the present litigation. Till the final adjudication of the writ appeals in tenancy dispute, even if any order or decree passed by the civil Court does not have bearing on the rights of the parties. Therefore giving liberty to both the parties to agitate their rights before the competent Court, if required, after final adjudication of the tenancy dispute, these appeals could be disposed of, because u/S 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide regarding the tenancy rights between the parties. Even if the defendant No.1 executes the sale deed as per the compromise decree in -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5242 RFA No. 100118 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100090 of 2016 favour of defendant No.2, it may not have any legal effect. Considering these facts and circumstances, following orders are passed.
ORDER Both the appeals are disposed of giving liberty to the parties to agitate their right after final adjudication of the tenancy dispute by the competent authorities.
Since these appeals are not decided on merits, contentions of both the parties are kept open to be urged in a future litigation, if any, required to be filed.
Send back the trial court records along with a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4