HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT v. DHARWAD DISTRICT

Judgment

#1. VISHNU S/O. GHANTUSA DANI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GAVI ONI, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S 1A) SMT. BHARATI W/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 1B) KUMARI RAJESHWARI D/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 1C) KUMARI KAVITA D/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 1D) VISHAL S/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 SUBASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 1E) KUMARI SWATI D/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 1F) VICKY S/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 1G) SMT. SNEHA U.METRANI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. TAMBAN ONI, HIREPETH, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.

#7. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. NARAYANSA DANI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GAVI ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SEETAL D/O. NARAYANSA DANI, AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GAVI ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHAWAD. NITIN S/O. NARAYANSA DANI, AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GAVI ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. BHARAT S/O. NARAYANSA DANI, AGE ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GAVI ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. PAVAN S/O. NARAYANSA DANI, AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GAVI ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. UJWAL S/O. NARAYANSA DANI, AGE ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GAVI ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

#8. SANTOSH S/O. NARAYANSA DANI, AGE ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 R/O. GAVI ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

#9. ASHOK S/O. GHANTUSA DANI, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GAVI ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

#10. SMT. PARVATI D/O. GHANTUSA DANI, AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GAVI ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI S.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI PRASHANTH S.HOSMANI, ADVOCATE.) AND: SRI. RAMACHANDRASA S/O. NARASINGAPPA SOLANKE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.,

#6. SRI. GANAPATASA S/O. RAMACHANDRASA SOLANKE, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. RANGANATHASA S/O. RAMACHANDRASA SOLANKE, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. MOTILALSA S/O. RAMACHANERASA SOLANKE, SINCE DEBASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. SMT. JAYA W/O. MOTILALSA SOLANKE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SANTOSH S/O. MOTILALSA SOLANKE, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. KISHAN S/O. MOTILALSA SOLANKE, AGE: 21 YEAS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. ASHWINI D/O. MOTILALSA SOLANKE, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013

#15. R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SEEMA D/O. MOTILALSA SOLANKE, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SOMANATHSA S/O. RAMACHANDRASA SOLANKE, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. TULAJAPPA @ KAPU S/O. RAMACHANDRASA SOLANKE, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SMT. NARMADABAI V.PAWAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SAHASRARJUN NAGAR, NEAR SIDDHARUDHASWAMY MATH, OLD HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SMT. SHAKUNTALABAI P.PAWAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHANNAPETH MAIN ROAD, OLD-HUBLI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SMT. INDIRABAI B.PAWAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TORAVIHAKKAL, NEAR DURGADEVI TEMPLE, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SMT. RUKMINIBAI S.JARTARGHAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GARDENPETH, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SMT. RATNABAI Y.GUDI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BHAVANINAGAR, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SMT. VIMALABAI R.SHALAGAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SANMAN COLONY, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013

#19. SMT. PUSHPABAI M.BHURE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SMT. SAVITRIBAI W/O. KASHINATH DIVATE, (GAIKWAD), AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. PRABHAKAR S/O. KASHINATH DIVATE, (GAIKWAD), AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. SHANKAR S/O. KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SRINAGAR, KARWAR-ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 19(A) RATANA W/O. SHANKAR GAIKWAD, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO.53, SRINAGAR, KARWAR-ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 19(B) SUSHAS S/O. SHANKAR GAIKWAD, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.53, SRINAGAR, KARWAR-ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 19(C) SHRIKANT S/O. SHANKAR GAIKWAD, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: ASHIRUKTIH, 49, 10TH A MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, VEDERAHALLI, DIST. BENGALURU-560097, KARNATAKA. 19(D) SOUMYA W/O. RAJENDRA D/O. SHANKAR GAIYKWAD (DECEASED), AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: B 303, EMERALD PARK, PIMPRI CHINCHWAD, DIST. MAHARASHTRA-411033. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013

#20. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

#25. JAGANNATH S/O. KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, SMT. GEETA W/O. JAGANNATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: SHRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. KIRAN S/O. JAGANNATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. SHRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD A MINOR R/BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, SMT. GEETA W/O. JAGANNATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD) RESPONDENT NO.21. ANUSH S/O. JAGANNATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. SHRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD, A MINOR BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. GEETA W/O. JAGANNATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD) RESPONDENT NO.21. ANIL S/O. KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. PRAVEEN S/O. KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. (BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R16; SRI V.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R17 TO R25; (R22 AND R23 ARE MINORS REP. BY R21); R13-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R19 (A TO D)). …RESPONDENTS - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2013 IN O.S.NO.195/2000 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HUBLI AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF RESPONDENT NOS.1-16 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN R.F.A. NO.4155 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

#1. 2

#3. SMT. SAVITRI BAI W/O. LATE KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR-KARWAD ROAD, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. PRABHAKAR S/O. KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR-KARWAD ROAD, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SHANKAR S/O. LATE SHRI KASHINATH DIVATE(GAIKWAD), AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR-KARWAD ROAD, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 3(A) RATANA W/O. SHANKAR GAIKWAD, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO.53, SRINAGAR, KARWAD-ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 3(B) SUSHAS S/O. SHANKAR GAIKWAD, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.53, SRINAGAR, KARWAR-ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 3(C) SHRIKANT S/O. SHANKAR GAIKWAD, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: ASHIRUKTIH, 49, 10TH A MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, VEDERAHALLI, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 DIST. BENGALURU-560097, KARNATAKA. 3(D) SOUMYA W/O. RAJENDRA D/O. SHANKAR GAIYKWAD (DECEASED), AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: B 303, EMERALD PARK, PIMPRI CHINCHWAD, DIST. MAHARASHTRA-411033.

#5. 5A.

SHRI RAMKRISHNA S/O. LATE SHRI KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR-KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SHRI JAGANNATH S/O. LATE SHRI KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD) SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S SMT. GEETHA W/O. LATE SHRI JAGANNATH DIVATE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT SRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 5B. MASTER KIRAN S/O. LATE SHRI JAGANNATH DIVATE, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR-KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 5C. KUM. ANUSHA D/O. LATE SHRI JAGANNATH DIVATE, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/AT SRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT.

#7. ANIL S/O. LATE SHRI KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT SRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SHRI PRAVEEN S/O. LATE SHRI KASHINATH DIVATE (GAIKWAD), AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 R/AT SRINAGAR, KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI V.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR A5 (A TO C), A6 AND A7; SRI SANGRAM KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR A1, A2 AND A4, A3 (A TO D). AND:

#3. 3A 3B. 3C. SHRI RAMACHANDRASA NARASINGAPPA SOLANKE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. SHRI GANAPATTASA S/O. LATE SHRI RAMACHANDRASA SOLANKE, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SHRI RANGANATHSA S/O. LATE SHIR RAMACHANDRASA SOLANKE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SHRI. MOTILALSA S/O. LATE SHIR RAMACHANDRASA SOLANKE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. SMT. JAYA W/O. LATE SHRI MOTILALSA SOLANKE, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SHRI SANTOSH S/O. LATE SHRI MOTILALSA SOLANKE, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SHRI KISHAN S/O. LATE SHRI MOTILALSA SOLANKE, AGE: 21 YEAS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 3D. 3E. MS. ASHWINI D/O. LATE SHRI MOTILALSA SOLANKE, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. MS. SEEMA D/O. LATE SHRI MOTILALSA SOLANKE, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT.

#9. SHRI SOMANATHASA S/O. LATE SHIR RAMACHANDRASA SOLANKE, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SHRI TULAJAPPA @ KAKKU S/O. LATE SHRI RAMACHANDRASA SOLANKE, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SMT. NARMADA BAI W/O. SHRI V. PAWAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: SAHASARJUN NAGAR, NEAR SIDDHARUDASWAMY MATH, OLD HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI W/O. SHRI P.PAWAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: CHENNAPETH MAIN ROAD, HUBALI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SMT. INDIRA BAI W/O. SHRI B.PAWAR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TORAVI AKKALA, NEAR DURGA DEVI TEMPLE, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SMT. RUKMINIAI W/O. S.JARTARGAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: GARDENPETH, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013

#13. 13A 13B 13C 13D SMT. RATNABAI Y.GUDI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAVANI NAGAR, HUBLI, SMT. VIMALABAI W/O. SHRI R.SHALAGAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: SANMAN COLONY, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SMT. PUSHPABAI W/O. SHRI M.BHURE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: DIVATE ONI, HUBLI. SHRI VISHNU S/O. SHRI GNANTUSA DANI, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT: NO.101, GAVI ONI, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S ST. BHARATI W/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBHASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. KUMARI RAJESHWARI D/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBHASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. KUMARI KAVITA D/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBHASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. VISHAL S/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBHASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 13E KUMARI SWATI D/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 13F 13G

#14. 14A R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBHASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. VICKY S/O. VISHNU DANI, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBHASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. SMT. SNEHA U.METRANI, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.78, ARIHANT NAGAR, SUBHASH COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD. SHRI NARAYANA S/O. SHRI GNANTUSA DANI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. LATE SHRI NARAYANA GNANTUSA DANI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT. NO.101, GAVI ONI, HUBLI-580024. 14B MS. SEETHALA D/O. LATE SHRI NARAYANA GNANTUSA DANI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/AT. NO.101, GAVI ONI, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 14C MR. NITHIN S/O. LATE SHRI NARAYANA GNANTUSA DANI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/AT: NO.101, GAVI ONI, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 14D MR. BHARATH S/O. LATE SHRI NARAYANA GNANTUSA DANI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/AT: NO.101, GAVI ONI, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 14E MR. PAVANA S/O. LATE SHRI NARAYANA GNANTUSA DANI, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 R/AT: NO.101, GAVI ONI, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 14F MR. UJWALA G O BALU S/O. LATE SHRI NARAYANA GNANTUSA DANI, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/AT: NO.101, GAVI ONI, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 14G MR. SANTOSH S/O. LATE SHRI NARAYANA GNANTUSA DANI, AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/AT: NO.101, GAVI ONI, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 15 16 SHRI ASHOK S/O. SHRI GNANTUSA DANI, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT: NO.101, GAVI ONI, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. SMT. PARVATI D/O. SHRI GNANTUSA DANI, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: NO.101, GAVI ONI, HUBLI-580024, DHARWAD DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R3(A-E), R4 TO R12; SRI PRASHANTH S.HOSMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R13 (A TO G); NOTICE TO R14(A), R14(B), R14(C), R14(D), R14(E), R14(F) AND R14(G) ARE SERVED; R15 AND R16 – NOTICE SERVED.) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

27.04.2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBLI, IN O.S.NO.195/2000 BY ALLOWING THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL AND DISMISS THE SUIT AND ETC.,. THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) RFA No.4152/2013 is filed by defendants No.8 to 11 in the suit questioning the judgment and decree dated

27.04.2013, passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, in O.S.No.195/2000. RFA No.4155/2013 is filed by defendants No.1 to 7, questioning the very same judgment decree passed by the trial Court.

#2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

#3. The plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of contract of agreement dated 06.03.1995 by pleading that defendants No.1 to 7 are the owner of suit property and they have offered the suit property for sale and hence the plaintiffs have entered into agreement dated

06.03.1995 and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as part payment. It was agreed that rate was fixed at Rs.40,201/- per gunta. Defendants No.1 to 7 also agreed to seek - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 permission from the competent authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the ULCR Act, for short) within 15 days from the date of agreement. It is pleaded in the plaint that thereafter defendants No.1 to 7 have sold the property to defendants No.8 to 11 with mala fide intention to defeat the right of the plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiffs put a claim to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff, but the defendants No.1 to 7 denied, resulting into filing of suit for specific performance of contract.

#4. Defendants No.1 to 7 being owners of the property have filed the written statement and defendants No.8 to 11 have adopted the written statement filed by defendants No.1 to 7. The defendants have denied execution of agreement of sale averred in the plaint. They also denied receipt of part of sale consideration amount. It is pleaded in the written statement that the son of the plaintiff who is main cause for all these acts and deeds had received signatures on blank bond papers and created a fraudulent agreement of sale. Therefore, it is pleaded, there was no execution of agreement of sale and receipt of amount as part - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 payment. Therefore, with all these pleadings, the suit filed by the plaintiff is opposed and contested.

#5. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following: ISSUES

#1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants No.1 to 7, have agreed to sell the suit property to him @ Rs.40,201/- per gunta and executed sale agreement in his favour on 6.3.1995, having received earnest money of Rs.50,000/-?

#2. Does he further prove that, he is put in possession of suit property in pursuance of suit sale agreement and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same?

#3. Whether plaintiff defendants No.1 to 7 executed another agreement on 12.9.1996 in his favour acknowledging the receipt of Rs.90,000/- from him? proves

#4. Whether that, plaintiff defendants No.1 to 7 had executed the power of attorney in favour of Y.N.Ladwa, to get permission under Urban Land Ceiling Act? proves

#5. Doest he prove further that, defendants No.8 to 11 were aware of suit sale agreement before they got the sale deed from defendants No.1 to 7 on 22.8.2000? - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013

#6. Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

#7. Whether he specific is entitled performance of sale agreement or in the alternative, the refund of earnest money?

#8. What decree or order? ADDITIONAL ISSUES:

#1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 7 in favour of defendants No.8 to 11 dated 22.3.2000 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?

#2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled declaration as prayed for?

#3. Whether the plaintiff has not paid the court fee properly on the relief of declaration?

#4. Whether the suit is bad for list joinder of cause of action?

#5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?

#6. What order?”

#6. In order to prove his case, plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1 and other witnesses are examined as PW.2 to PW.5 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.19. On the other hand, defendant No.1 is examined as - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 DW.1 and other witnesses were examined as DW.2 to DW.5 and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to D.10.

#7. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff thereby issued a direction to defendants No.1 to 7 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the remaining sale consideration amount from the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.40,201/- per gunta, after ascertaining the exact measurement of the suit property and directed defendants No.8 to 11 to join with defendants No.1 to 7 in executing the registered sale deed. Further it is decreed that the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 7 in the name of defendants No.8 to 11 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Thus in this way the trial Court has decreed the suit in full in favour of the plaintiff.

#8. The trial Court assigned reason that execution of agreement of sale dated 06.03.1995 is proved and also it is proved that defendants No.1 to 7 have received part of sale consideration amount. It has assigned reason defendants No.1 to 7 ought to have performed their part of - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 contract, but they did not do so though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Therefore, by holding that the defendants were never ready and willing to perform their part of contract, accordingly decreed the suit.

#9. Further assigned reason that when it is the stipulation in the agreement that necessary permission ought to be taken from the competent authorities for selling the land, and when the said ULCR Act is repealed on 22.03.1999, then defendants No.1 to 7 ought to have performed their part of contract by executing the sale deed, but without doing so failed to execute the sale deed to perform their part of contract. Hence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court upon answering issue No.6 regarding whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence as per section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (‘the Act’ for short), the plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness and accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as above stated. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013

#10. Being aggrieved by it, defendants No.8 to 11 have preferred the present appeal in RFA No.4152/2013 raising various grounds that the defendants No.1 to 7 have never executed agreement of sale dated 06.03.1995 and have not received partial consideration amount. Further raised ground that defendants No.8 to 11 are bona fide purchasers of the suit property and in this regard there is no specific issue framed, but holding that defendants No.8 to 11 are not bona fide purchasers and declaring the sale deed executed dated 22.8.2000 in favour of defendants No.8 to 11 by defendants No.1 to 7 is not correct. Further raised ground that though there is stipulation in the agreement for getting permission from the competent authorities under the ULCR Act, but the said Act is repealed on 22.03.1999. Thereafter the plaintiffs have not issued any notice to defendants No.1 to 7, but straight way has filed suit on 05.09.2000 after lapse of more than 1½ years. This itself shows the fact that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Further, raised ground that though the agreement of sale stated to have been executed on - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013

06.03.1995, but the plaintiff never came forward for getting execution of sale deed and also the plaintiff never proved his readiness and willingness till the date of filing of the suit. But the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in this regard and has wrongly decreed the suit. Therefore on all these grounds prays to allow the appeal.

#11. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the records.

#12. Upon perusing the evidence on record, material placed on record and submission of learned counsels appearing for both the parties, the points that arise for my consideration are as follows: i) Whether, circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract as per section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? ii) Whether, circumstances involved in the case, the decree of specific performance of contract is causing hardship to defendants No.8 to 11 and defendants No.1 to 7? iii) Whether, circumstances involved in the case, the - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 discretion exercised by the trial Court is valid, justified and correct as per section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

#13. Learned counsel for the appellants in both cases, who were arrayed as defendants No.1 to 7 and defendants No.8 to 11 respectively, have argued that though there is a condition in agreement of sale regarding appellants obtaining permission from competent authorities for selling the land under the ULCR Act and even after repealing the said Act on

22.03.1999, the plaintiff has never come forward after issuing notice to him to get the sale deed executed. But straightaway the suit came to be filed on 05.08.2000 itself. Therefore, it shows that the plaintiff was never willing to perform his part of contract and it was wrongly held by the Trial Court while answering Issue No.6 that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Further submitted that there is no issue framed by the Trial Court whether defendants No.8 to 11 are bono fide purchasers or not. But straightaway coming to the conclusion that defendants No.8 to 11 are not bona fide purchasers, is not correct. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the appeals - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

#14. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent No.19 (a to d) has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.N.KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED) AND OTHERS LRS. Vs. A.M.KRISHNAMURTHY1 wherein it is held as under: “32. In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the Court is required to pose unto itself the following questions, namely:

32.1. Whether there is a valid agreement of sale binding on both the vendor and the vendee.

32.2. Whether the plaintiff has all along been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

#33. There is a distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract and both ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific performance. In Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar [Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar, (1996) 4 SCC 526] cited by Mr Venugopal, this Court said that there was a difference between 1 (2023) 11 SCC 775 - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 readiness and willingness to perform a contract. While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff. The Court in Kalawati v. Rakesh Kumar [Kalawati v. Rakesh Kumar, (2018) 3 SCC 658 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 609] .

#34. Even in a first appeal, the first appellate court is duty-bound to examine whether there was continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform the contract. This proposition finds support from Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan [Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396] and H.P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa [H.P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa, (2006) 2 SCC 496] where this Court approved the views taken the Privy Council in Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Sassoon [Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Sassoon, 1928 SCC OnLine PC 43 : (1927-28) 55 IA 360 at p. 372 : AIR 1928 PC 208] .”

#15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that Ex.P2 is the agreement of sale dated 06.03.1995 and possession of the property was given to the plaintiff. When this being the fact mentioned in the agreement of sale, Section 20 of the Act is not applicable. Further submitted that, as per Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendants No.1 to 7 being - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 vendors have not discharged their duties. Hence, submitted that defendants No.8 to 11 are not bona fide purchasers, which is correctly held by the Trial Court. Further submitted that at many interval of time including soon after execution of agreement of sale, the plaintiff paid part payment to the defendants No.1 to 7 and defendants No.1 to 7 have received part payment. Hence, the Trial Court is correct in holding that agreement of sale is proved to have been executed and defendants No.1 to 7 have received the said amount.

#16. It is further submitted that defendants No.1 to 7 were having knowledge of the fact that the plaintiffs were ever ready and willing to perform their part of contract. When such being the state of affairs, defendants No.1 to 7 have sold their property to defendants No.8 to 11 on

22.08.2000, with mala fide intension. Thus, defendants No.8 to 11 being purchasers are not bona fide purchasers. Further submitted that defendants No.1 to 7 have sold the property even to the lesser consideration than what is agreed with the plaintiffs. This itself shows the fact that defendants No.1 to 7 - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 were having mala fide intension to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. Hence, submitted that the defendants No.8 to 11 are not the bona fide purchasers. Hence, it is rightly considered by the Trial Court. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

#17. In support of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs relies on the following judgments:

#1. T.MOHAN VS. KANNAMMAL AND OTHERS - MANU/SC/0261/2002

#2. P.DAIVASIGAMANI VS. S.SAMBANDAN - (2022) 14 SCC 79

#3. J.P.BUILDERS AND ANOTHER VS. A.RAMDAS RAO AND ANOTHER - (2011) 1 SCC 429)

#4. VIJAY A. MITTAL AND OTHERS VS. KULWANT RAI (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ANOTHER - (2019) 3 SCC 520

#5. TEK CHAND AND OTHERS VS. DEEP CHAND AND OTHERS - (2001) 4 SCC 488

#6. RAM NIWAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VS. BANO (SMT) AND OTHERS - (2000) 6 SCC 685 - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013

#7. ZARINA SIDDIQUI VS. RAMALINGAM ALIAS R.AMARNATHAN - (2015) 1 SCC 705

#8. JAYAKANTHAM AND OTHERS VS. ABAYKUMAR2 - (2017) 5 SCC 178.

#9. R. SHAMA NAIK Vs. G.SRINIVASIAH - 2024 SCC ONLINE 3586.

#18. The suit is filed for specific performance of contract or in the alternative for refund of earnest money and damages. Earlier the suit was decided and decreed on

28.01.2005 and it was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.524/2005 C/w RFA No.737/2005. The Division Bench of this Court while remanding the matter on

16.03.2011 has directed the Trial Court to frame issue regarding whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract. After remanding the case to the Trial Court, as per Section 16(c) of the Act, regarding proof by the plaintiffs, whether they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract, this is the 2nd round of 2 (2017) 5 SCC 178 - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 litigation in respect of the same matter before this Court. The earlier appeals, RFA Nos.534/2005 and RFA No.737/2005, were before the Hon’ble Division Bench for the reason that, according to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the subject matter, the appeals were heard by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

#19. After remanding the matter, the Trial Court has framed Issue No.6 regarding proving of readiness and willingness by the plaintiffs in performing their part of contract and it is held that the plaintiffs have proved they were ever ready and willing to perform their part of contract and accordingly, decreed the suit.

#20. Upon considering the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court, the two aspects are to be considered in these appeals i.e., whether the plaintiffs have proved that they were ever ready and willing to perform their part of contract, under Section 16(C) of the Act and the other aspect to be considered is whether - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 the Trial Court has exercised its discretion correctly as per Section 20 of the Act.

#21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. MOHAN VS. KANNAMMAL AND OTHERS3, has observed at paragraph No.10 as under: “10. Coming to the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part of the contract, it was so averred in the plaint and reiterated in the notice dated 18/19.5.1981 and also in the evidence of the plaintiff. Further, the question of readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration money is not of much importance in view of the admitted factual position that the vendor had parted with possession of the property in favour of the purchaser even before expiry of the period stipulated in the agreement. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the finding of the High Court that the plaintiff duly satisfied the requirement of law of readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract.”

#22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.DAIVASIGAMANI VS. S.SAMBANDAN4, has held as under: 3MANU/SC/0261/2002 - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 “21.Readiness and willingness are not one, but two separate elements. Readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract, which would include the financial position to pay the purchase price. Willingness refers to the intention of the plaintiff as a purchaser to perform his part of the contract. Willingness is inferred by scrutinising the conduct of plaintiff purchaser, including attending circumstances5. Continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff purchaser from the date the balance sale consideration was payable in terms of the agreement to sell, till the decision of the suit, is a condition precedent for grant of relief of specific performance6.

#22. The expression “readiness and willingness” used in Section 16 (c) of the said Act, has been interpreted in catena of decisions by this Court, in the light of facts and circumstances of the cases under consideration for the purpose of granting or refusing to grant the relief of Specific Performance of a contract. The said expression cannot be interpreted in a straitjacket formula. In a very apt decision of this Court in case of Syed Dastagir vs. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty (1999) 6 SCC 337, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, construing a plea of “readiness and willingness to ORDER i. Both the appeals are allowed in part. ii. The judgment and decree dated 27.04.2013, passed in O.S.No.195/2000 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, is hereby set aside. iii. Consequently, the suit for specific performance of contract is dismissed. iv. Defendants No.1 to 7 shall refund the earnest amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of - 68 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1557 RFA No. 4152 of 2013 C/W RFA No. 4155 of 2013 agreement 06.03.1995 the date of repayment. v. Defendants No.1 to 7 shall deposit the above said amount with interest as stated above, before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli, in O.S.No.195/2000, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. vi. In the event defendants No.1 to 7 fail to deposit the said amount, then the plaintiff is at liberty to file an execution petition for recovery proceedings as per law. vii. Draw decree accordingly. viii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK-para 1 to 12. PMP-para 13 to 34, SRA-para 35 to end. CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1