IN THE HIGH COURT OF BENCH

DATED THIS THE 7 T H DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA

R.S.A.NO.5553/2009

BETWEEN:

1. BASAPPA S/O MALLAPPA BELAGAJJARI SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS L.RS.,

1A) SMT.GOURAVVA W/O.BASETTEPPA AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. K.B.TIMMAPUR, TQ: .

1B) NEELAPPA S/O. BASAPPA BELAGAJJARI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.SHIGLI, TQ: , DIST: GADAG.

1C) MALLAPPA S/O.BASAPPA BELAGAJJARI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG.

1D) SMT.SHANTAVVA W/O.SHEKHAPPA ANGADI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG.

1E) BASAVARAJ S/O. BASAPPA BELAGAJJARI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG.

2. SUBHAS S/O TAMMANNA DANAPPANAVAR AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG 582116 2

3. ADIVEPPA @ MUDAKAPPA S/O TAMMANNA DANAPPANAVAR AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG

4. NINGAPPA S/O TAMMANNA DANAPPANAVAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG

5. HOLIBASAPPA S/O TAMMANNA DANAPPANAVAR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG

6. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O TAMMANNA DANAPPANAVAR AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG

7. SMT. BASAVVA W/O CHANNABASAPPA BALIKAI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG

.. APPELLANTS (BY SRI S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

1. PRABHAKAR S/O VISHNU PATIL AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG

2. SMT. SHANTABAI W/O NARAYAN PATIL AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG 3

3. NANDAKUMAR NARAYAN PATIL AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SHIGLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG

4. SMT. GEETA W/O VILASARAO KULKARNI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O LINE BAZAR DHARWAD SALAGAR CHAWL, DHARWAD

5. SMT BHARATI W/O VINAYAK NAIK AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O DADAR MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)

.. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASARADDY, ADVOCATE, FOR R.1, R.2 TO R.5 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.7.2009, PASSED IN R.A.NO.115/2000, ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), GADAG, SITTING AT LAXMESHWAR AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.8.2000, PASSED IN O.S.NO.86/1989, ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, LAXMESHWAR, ETC.,.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

In this restored appeal, it is seen that a memo is filed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 bringing to notice of this Court 4

that pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.115/2000, dated 14.9.2009, which is in confirmation of judgment and decree in

O.S.No.86/1989, dated 28.8.2000. Execution was levied in Exe.Case No.3/2010, on the file of Civil

Judge (Jr.Dn.), Laxmeshwar. In the said execution proceedings the executing Court has given effect to the decree passed in O.S.No.86/1989, which was confirmed in R.A.No.115/2000 and consequently conveyed the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff in the original suit by executing a sale deed vide No.1489/2010-11.

2. It is stated that the sale deed which is executed through the Court is dated 3.3.2011 and pursuant to the said sale deed possession is also delivered to the plaintiff, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. In that view of the matter, this second appeal filed by defendants 2 and 3(a) to 3(f) in 5

O.S.No.86/1989 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, as it has become infructuous.

Sd/- JUDGE Mrk/-