The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 2.8.2022 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC. The Court observed that it is not a suit for declaration of title; in that circumstance, it is for the plaintiff to prove his lawful possession over the suit-scheduled property.
Brief Facts:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the petitioners/defendants that during the course of evidence, the plaintiff/respondent marked Exs.P11 to P23, and the petitioners questioned the genuineness of those documents. It was contended that those documents were not proved in accordance with law and to prove their contention, it would be necessary to examine the officials who issued those documents. The documents at Exs.P11 to P23 were documents issued by the BBMP or Grama Panchayath of Thanisandra. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC to summon the officials of BBMP and Grama Panchayath to say with regard to the documents said to have been issued by them which are at exhibits P11 to P23. The said application was rejected under the impugned order, observing that it is the plaintiff/respondent who has to prove his case on his own and also observing that the application is not clear as to why those officials are to be summoned.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the summoning of officials from BBMP and Grama Panchayath was absolutely necessary to prove their contention that Exs.P11 to P23 are not genuine documents. He submitted that the plaintiff marked those documents and did not examine the author of those documents. In such circumstances, the defendants filed an application to summon the officials of BBMP and Grama Panchayath to say with regard to the documents. He argued that the Trial Court without appreciating the contention of the petitioners under the impugned order, rejected the application.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Trial Court rightly observed that it is for the plaintiff to prove his case. He argued that the suit is one for bare injunction and is not a suit for declaration of title. In a suit for bare injunction, it is for the party to prove his lawful possession. Thus, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is one for a permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants not to interfere with the enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule property.
The Court observed that in a suit for bare injunction, it is for the person who approaches the Court to prove his lawful possession. It is not a suit for declaration of title. In that circumstance, it is for the plaintiff to prove his lawful possession over the suit-scheduled property. In the course of the trial, the respondent/plaintiff marked exhibits P11 to P23 ― documents said to have been issued by the BBMP or the Grama Panchayath of Tanisandra. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove the documents in accordance with the law and it is for the Trial Court, at the time of final disposal, to evaluate and appreciate the documents and their genuineness.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the petition, held that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order under challenge.
Case Title: Chandra & Ors. vs G. Krishnappa
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. G. Pandit
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 19003 of 2022 (GM-CPC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. B Chadrashekar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. R Shreedhar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
