SANNAVEERAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA HALLEPPANAVAR vs BASAVAREDDI S/O. HEMARADDI MELAGIRI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI


REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.101485 OF 2022
(DEC/INJ-)

BETWEEN:

SANNAVEERAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA HALLEPPANAVAR,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ITAGI (HOLE-ITAGI), TQ. SHIRAHATTI,
DIST. GADAG-582112.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. BASAVAREDDI S/O. HEMARADDI MELAGIRI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KARLWAD-582208,
TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.

2. SMT. PADDAVVA W/O. HANAMARADDI NEELAGUND,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KARLWAD-582208,
TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.

3. SMT. INDRAVVA W/O. GURAPPA KIRESUR,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NYAVALLI KURAHATTI,
TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.

4. SMT. SUNANDA W/O. HANAMARADDI YADAHALLI,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KARLWAD-582208,
TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.













Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI
H M
Date:
2026.11.06
12:40:22
+0530
BHARATHI
H M

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022


5. SMT. SHIVEELA W/O. KRISHTAPPA IBRAHIMPUR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NYAVALLI KURAHATTI-582208,
TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.

6. SMT. SHRIDEVI W/O. LATE VENKARADDI MELAGIRI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWORK,
R/O. SHRI SAI KRUPA, II CROSS,
II COMPOUND, GANDHI NAGAR,
DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580004.

7. ABHISHEK VENKARADDI MELAGIRI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. SHRI SAI KRUPA, II CROSS, II COMPOUND,
GANDHI NAGAR, DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD-580004.
RESPONDENTS
(V/O. DATED 10.09.2026, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R1, R6 AND R7-
IS HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI. M.V. HIREMATH AND
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R5)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W. ORDER XLI
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A. NO.19/2018 DATED 13.11.2019 BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, LAXMESHWAR, CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO.126/2010 DATED
27.04.2018 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, LAXMESHWAR AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF TO MEET THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022



ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned
Counsel for Respondents No.2 to 5.

2. Defendant No.3 in O.S. No.126/2010 on the file
of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwar (for short,
‘trial court’) has maintained this regular second appeal.

3. The plaintiff namely Sri Hemaraddi, S/o
Bhimaraddi Melageri filed the suit in O.S. No.126/2010 for
declaration of his title in respect of suit property i.e., land
bearing R.S. No.96/2+3 totally measuring 7 acres 20
guntas situated at Itagi Village of Shirahatti Taluk and for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the
suit property. The plaintiff claims to be the owner in
possession of the suit property having purchased the same
under two Sale Deeds dated 29.06.1972 and 17.04.1973.
He contends that the defendants are no way concerned to
him or his properties. He alleges that the husband of

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022


Defendant No.1 namely Venkaraddi and Defendant No.2
managed to get the mutation in their names without his
knowledge. He stated that he has questioned the said
mutation before the competent authority in RTS
No.7/2009-10 and that such illegal entry is not binding on
him. In the above circumstances, he maintained the suit
for declaration and injunction.

4. Initially, the plaintiff had maintained the suit
only against Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.3
purchased portion of the suit property on 04.07.2011 i.e.,
during pendency of the suit. As such, he was brought on
record as additional defendant as per Order on I.A. No.8
dated 15.01.2013.

5. On service of summons, the defendants
appeared before the trial court through their counsel and
contested the suit. Defendants No.1 and 3 filed their
written statement separately.

6. Defendant No.1 in her written statement
contended that the suit properties were purchased by the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022


father of the plaintiff namely Sri Bhimaraddi in the name
of the plaintiff and that on the basis of joint varadi given
by the plaintiff and Venkaraddi, the suit property was
mutated in their names as joint owners in possession of
the property. She contended that after the death of Sri
Venkaraddi, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 became the joint
owners of the suit property and they have got half share
therein. She further stated that they have sold a portion of
the suit property in favour of Defendant No.3 for their
legal necessities on 04.07.2011 and prayed for dismissal
of the suit.

7. Even Defendant No.3 in his written statement
contended that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the
schedule property through Sri Venkaraddi and claimed
that he is a bonafide purchaser. Hence, he prayed for
dismissal of the suit.

8. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed
necessary issues, recorded the evidence adduced by the
parties. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022


i.e., on 19.10.2016 and his legal representatives were
brought on record as per order on I.A. No.27. Afterwards,
the trial court heard the arguments of both sides and
decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 27.04.2018.

9. Defendant No.3 preferred the appeal in R.A.
No.19/2018 challenging the judgment and decree of the
trial court. The first appellate court, after re-appreciating
the materials on record, concurred with the findings
recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal vide
its judgment dated 13.11.2019. Feeling aggrieved,
Defendant No.3 has preferred this regular second appeal.

10. Sri R. H. Angadi, learned Counsel for Defendant
No.3 vehemently submitted that the findings recorded by
the courts below are highly erroneous, perverse,
capricious and contrary to settled principles of law. He
submitted that Defendant No.3 is a bonafide purchaser of
a portion of the suit property for valuable consideration.
He further submitted that the mutation effected in the
names of the plaintiff and Venkaraddi coupled with the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022


partition affected between them as per Ex.D12. Ex.D12
goes to show that the plaintiff and Venkaraddi were the
joint owners of the suit property. In view of the same, he
contended that after the death of Sri Venkaraddi,
Defendants No.1 and 2 succeeded to half share in the suit
property and thereby they had valid title to alienate the
portion of the suit property in favour of Defendant No.3.
He submitted that Defendants No.1 and 2 alienated the
property for their legal necessity and as such the interest
of Defendant No.3 in the suit property needs to be
protected. He vigorously submitted that the courts below
have not properly assessed the evidence on record and
thereby misdirected themselves in arriving at a wrong
conclusion. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal and set
aside the judgment and decree under challenge.

11. As noted above, the plaintiff Sri Hemaraddi
maintained the suit for declaration and injunction in
respect of land bearing R.S. No.96/2+3 totally measuring
7 acres 20 guntas situated at Itagi Village of Shirahatti

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022


Taluk. The case of the plaintiff is that he has purchased
the suit property under two Sale Deeds dated 29.06.1972
and 17.04.1973 and thereby he became the owner of the
suit property. The plaintiff has produced original sale
deeds at Exs.P1 and P2 to support his contention. The
defendants do not dispute purchase of the suit property in
the name of the plaintiff. However, they contend that the
suit property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff
namely Sri Bhimaraddi, in the name of the plaintiff.
However, the defendants have failed to substantiate this
contention by adducing sufficient evidence.

12. In addition, the plaintiff has examined his
brother namely Sri Chowraddi Bhimaraddi Melageri, as
PW-2 in the case. Defendant No.1 is the daughter-in-law
and Defendant No.2 is his grandson of the said Sri
Chowraddi Bhimaraddi Melageri. During his evidence,
PW-2 Sri Chowraddi has categorically stated that there
was no ancestral property to his family and that the
plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit property. The

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022


case papers reveal that Defendants No.1 and 2 did not
cross-examine PW-2. Thereby, the statements made by
PW-2 regarding the nature of suit property at the hands of
the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Hence, it is to be held
that the courts below are justified in holding that the
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property.

13. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that
Defendants No.1 and 2 managed to get their names
entered in the revenue records by creating unregistered
partition deed. Undisputedly, the plaintiff had initiated a
proceeding before the revenue authorities in RTC/RA/SR-
07/2009-10, challenging the revenue entries in the name
of the defendants. It seems in the said proceeding the
plaintiff was directed to approach the civil court for
necessary remedy. Afterwards, the plaintiff maintained the
suit in question. Thus, it is clear that the revenue entries
standing in the names of the defendants are disputed
entries. Hence, it is held that the courts below were
justified in not giving any weightage to the mutation

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022


entries while deciding the contentions of the parties. It is
also relevant to note that the mutation entries do not
confer title, which needs to be proved based on title
deeds. Similarly, no importance can be attached to the
claim of Defendants No.1 and 2 regarding the alleged
partition between the plaintiff and Venkaraddi particularly
when they have failed to establish that the suit property
was either purchased by Bhimaraddi in the name of the
plaintiff or that it was their ancestral and joint family
property.

14. Admittedly, Defendant No.3 purchased a
portion of the suit property from Defendants No.1 and 2
on 04.07.2011 i.e., during pendency of the suit. The
Defendant No.3 being a pendente lite purchaser, he
cannot claim to be a bonafide purchaser. The law is clear
on this point. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
clarifies the legal position, which stipulates that the
transferee pendente lite is strictly bound by the final
decree or judgment passed in the suit, even if he had no

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022


knowledge/notice of the pending case. Thus, the careful
analysis of the materials on record goes to show that the
courts below have properly appreciated the pleadings of
the parties and the evidence adduced on record, and that
the courts below arrived at proper conclusion by applying
correct principles of law. Such factual findings of the
courts below are not perverse. The contentions put forth
by Defendant No.3 are in the nature of seeking reweighing
the evidence on record, which is not permissible. Thus, it
becomes clear that the facts and circumstance of the case
do not give raise to any substantial question of law for
consideration in the appeal.

15. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed .

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17687
RSA No. 101485 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020125282022


Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of, as they do not survive for
consideration.

SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE




RH/CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43