Karnataka High Court
Hanumanthi And Ors vs Muniswamy And Ors on 4 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB
RFA No.200175 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200175 OF 2019 (PAR/DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. HANUMANTHI
W/O THIPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. ANJINAYYA
S/O THIPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by 3. NAGARAJ
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ S/O THIPPAYYA
DHUTTARGAON
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KARNATAKA
4. NALLA REDDY
S/O THIPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. NALLA REDDY
S/O SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB
RFA No.200175 of 2019
6. ANJINAYYA
S/O SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ASKIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI I.R.BIRADAR &
SMT. REKHA M. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. MUNISWAMY
S/O DODDA RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. ANJINAYYA
S/O DODDA RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. HANUMANTHU
S/O DODDA RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. SHANKRAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHU,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
5. ANJINAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
6. LAXMI D/O LATE HANUMANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
7. NALIN KUMAR
S/O LATE HANUMANTHU,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB
RFA No.200175 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
8. RANGA SWAMY
S/O MUNEYYA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND
RESIDENTS OF ASKIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
9. M.H.ANITHA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: ASKIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ: RAICHUR - 584 101.
10. MUNESHWARI
D/O LATE HANUMANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
MINOR U/G OF HER
MOTHER SHANKRAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: ASKIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ: RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2019
PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT RAICHUR IN O.S.NO.119/2016 BY DECREEING THE SUIT OF
THE PLAINTIFFS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB
RFA No.200175 of 2019
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON HEARING
THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 29.06.2019 in O.S.No.119/2016 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Raichur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Juttayya was the original propositus of the plaintiffs and defendants family and he had a wife by name Sayamma. Both Juttayya and Sayamma are no more. Said Juttayya had four sons by -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 name Dodda Hanumayya, Sanjeevayya, Dodda Rangappa and Muneyya. All the four sons of Juttayya died long back. Dodda Hanumayya had a son by name Tippayya. He died leaving behind his wife who is plaintiff No.1 and three sons i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. Sanjeevayya had two sons by name Nallareddy and Anjinayya who are plaintiff Nos.5 and 6. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of Dodda Rangappa. Muneyya had a wife by name Amaramma and she died. They had two sons by name Hanumantha and Rangaswamy. Said Hanumanthu died long back. Rangaswamy is defendant No.8. Said Hanumanthu had a wife by name Shankaramma i.e., defendant No.4 and two daughters by name Anjinemma and Laxmi and a son by name Nalin Kumar who are defendant Nos.5 to 7 respectively. The proceedings were held before the Land Tribunal and they were all re-cultivating the land as common tenants upto the grant and later onwards. As such, the plaintiffs and defendants who are successors of Juttayya are the owners and in possession of the suit land having equal rights in the said land. They being the family -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 members, they have rights and share in the suit schedule property. After the demise of Juttayya, Dodda Hanumayya was acting as karta of the family and maintaining the suit land of the family. As such, name of Dodda Hanumayya entered in the revenue records in column No.9 by deleting the name of one Abdul Razak Sab and entry of name of Dodda Hanumayya continued upto 1983. After the death of Dodda Hanumayya in the year 1982, the name of his brother by name Dodda Rangappa was entered in the revenue records on behalf of the entire family members. Sanjeevayya, the second son of Juttayya and last son of Juttayya by name Muneyya consented on behalf of the joint family for filing application before the Land Tribunal for sanction of the suit property. Dodda Rangappa's name nominally mentioned in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights. However, the original propositus Juttayya's all the sons were cultivating the suit land jointly and the suit land is the joint family property of all the sons of Juttayya. It is contended that Muneyya had filed suit in O.S.No.221/2007 on the file of -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur against the sons of Juttayya claiming partition to the extent of half share without arraying the plaintiffs as parties in the said suit and got preliminary decree behind the back of the plaintiffs and the same was confirmed in R.A.No.59/2010 on 10.04.2014. It is contended that all the proceedings took place behind the back of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs approached the defendants to effect partition, but he defendants refused to effect partition. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file suit for partition and separate possession.
5. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 4 to 8 have filed separate written statements. Both the written statements are one and the same. It is mentioned that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs are having no right and interest over the suit schedule property as the same is not an ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants. It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendants are not the -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 members of the joint family and they are not the joint owners and possessors of the suit land as contended in the plaint. It is admitted regarding filing of the suit in O.S.No.221/2007 by Muneyya against the sons of Dodda Rangappa. The said suit was decreed. It is contended that Dodda Rangappa and Muneyya were the tenants and cultivating the land jointly till date and the said Dodda Rangappa and Muneyya both jointly filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Riachur and premium was paid by them. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Dodda Rangappa and Muneyya. Said Muneyya filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit land in O.S.No.221/2007. The said suit was decreed. Against that, legal representatives of Dodda Rangappa preferred an appeal in R.A.No.59/2010 which came to be dismissed. It is contended that since from the date of passing of the final decree, the legal representatives of Dodda Rangappa and Muneyya are in possession of respective half share in the suit property. It is contended that the plaintiffs were well aware of the -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 pendency of the suit and proceedings and plaintiff Nos.2 and 6 filed an application for impleading themselves as respondents in R.A.No.59/2010. The said application was rejected. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed same written statement. However, in paragraph-12 of the written statement, they have stated that Dodda Rangappa alone was tenant and he filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Raichur and premium was paid by him. Muneyya filed suit claiming half share in the suit schedule property and the learned Trial Court decreed the suit and both Dodda Rangappa and Muneyya got half share in the suit schedule property. On these grounds, they pray to dismiss the suit.
7. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues.
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, Juttayya was the propositus and had four sons and they constitute the joint family?
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019
2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, Dodda Hanumayya was acting as a karta of the family and accordingly, his name was entered in the record of rights of the suit land as per the order passed in the Land Tribunal?
3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are in joint possession of the suit land?
4) Whether the suit is bad for non-
joiner of necessary parties?
5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the decree passed in OS No.221/2007 is null and Void and not binding upon them?
6) Whether the order passed on IA No.II in RA No.59/2010 on the file of Prl. Dist. Judge, Raichur has become final and binding on the plaintiffs?
7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the half share in the suit lands?
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019
8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for?
9) What order or decree?
8. In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.5 got examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked 36 documents as Exs.P1 to P36. On the other hand, defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 26 documents as Exs.D1 to D26. Defendant No.8 examined himself as DW.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.D27 to D53.
9. After recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 in the negative and issue No.5 in the affirmative and issue No.9 as per the final order. Consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 29.06.2019 in O.S.No.119/2016.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019
10. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in the aforesaid suit, have filed this Regular First Appeal.
11. Heard Smt. Rekha M. Patil, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Sri.Shivanand Patil and Sri.Varun Patil, learned counsel for the defendants.
12. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Dodda Rangappa was in possession of the property as a tenant on behalf of the family members. The grant in favour of Dodda Rangappa is for the welfare of the family and not in individual capacity. The suit property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs and defendants are the members of hindu undivided family. There is no partition effected in between the plaintiffs and the defendants. She submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in recording the finding that the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Dodda Rangappa in his individual capacity. The said finding recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 records. She submits that Juttayya was in possession of the suit schedule property and after his demise, all the four sons continued to cultivate the suit schedule property. The said aspect was not considered by the Trial Court. She further submits that the impugned judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary, perverse and erroneous. On these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that Dodda Rangappa alone was in possession of the suit schedule property. He has filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Raichur. The Land Tribunal after holding an enquiry granted occupancy rights in favour of Dodda Rangappa. He submits that Muneyya filed suit against Dodda Rangappa in O.S.No.221/2007 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, claiming partition to the extent of half share. The said suit was decreed. The legal representatives of Dodda Rangappa preferred an appeal in R.A.No.59/2010. The said appeal was dismissed
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 confirming the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.221/2007. He submits that in the appeal in R.A.No.59/2010, plaintiff Nos.2 and 6 herein filed an application to implead themselves as proposed respondents and the same came to be rejected. The said order has attained finality. He submits that in order to establish that Dodda Rangappa alone was cultivating the suit land, the defendants have produced the records. The Trial Court placing reliance on the documents produced by the defendants, has rightly held that the occupancy rights was granted in favour of Dodda Rangappa. Further, the Trial Court considering the order passed on I.A.No.2 in R.A.No.59/2010 has rightly passed the impugned judgment. Hence, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
14. We have perused the records and considered the submissions of the leaned counsel for the parties.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019
15. To decide the appeal, the following points that arise for our consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the occupancy rights was granted in favour of Dodda Rangappa for and on behalf of the family?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.221/2007 is not binding on the plaintiffs?
3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse and arbitrary?
4) What order or decree?
16. Point No.1: In order to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.5 was examined as PW.1. He has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs have produced the documents. Exs.P1 to P7 are the RTC extracts in respect of the suit land which discloses the name of Dodda
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 Rangappa. Ex.P8 is the Kasara Phani in respect of the suit land. Ex.P9 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.221/2007 wherein the Muneyya filed suit for partition and separate possession against the legal representatives of Dodda Rangappa. The said suit was partly decreed vide judgment dated 26.03.2010 and it was held that Muneyya is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. Further, the Tahsildar, Raichur was directed to enter the name of Muneyya in the revenue records in respect of the suit land as per the decree. Ex.P10 is the certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.221/2007. Ex.P11 is the certified copy of the appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner by plaintiff Nos.2 and 5 against defendant Nos.6 to 10 challenging the entries made in the name of defendant Nos.6 to 10. Ex.P12 is the certified copy of the order of the Land Tribunal, Raichur, which discloses that Dodda Rangappa submitted an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in respect of land in Sy.No.191 of
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 Askihal village. The Land Tribunal vide order dated 23.03.1976 granted occupancy rights in respect of the suit land in the name of Dodda Rangappa S/o Juttayya. Ex.P13 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.221/2007 filed by Muneyya against the legal representatives of Dodda Rangappa and the Tahsildar, Raichur, for partition and separate possession. Ex.P14 is the certified copy of the written statement filed in O.S.No.221/2007 filed by defendant No.1 therein. Ex.P15 is the certified copy of the issues framed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.221/2007. Ex.P16 is the certified copy of the deposition of PW.1 - Rangaswamy, who was GPA holder of Muneyya in O.S.No.221/2007. Ex.P17 is the certified copy of deposition of PW.2-Bangi Gulappa in O.S.No.221/2007. Ex.P18 is the certified copy of deposition of PW.3- Narasamma in O.S.No.221/2007. Ex.P19 is the certified copy of the deposition of DW.1-Muniswamy S/o Dodda Rangappa in O.S.No.221/2007. Ex.P20 is the certified copy of deposition of DW.2-Ramappa in O.S.No.221/2007. Ex.P21 is the certified copy of GPA. Ex.P22 is the certified
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 copy of Form No.7 submitted by Dodda Rangappa before the Land Tribunal, Raichur, in respect of land in Sy.No.191 measuring 21 acres 29 guntas situated at Askihal village. Ex.P23 is the certified copy of the order sheet of the Land Tribunal. Exs.P24 to 26 are the RTC extracts. Ex.P27 is the certified copy of the Application submitted by the legal heirs of Dodda Rangappa to the Tahsildar to transfer the suit land in their names. Exs.P28 to 30 are the certified copies of tax paid receipts. Ex.P31 is the certified copy of payment of premium which discloses that Dodda Rangappa and Muneyya have paid premium on 30.04.1991. Ex.P32 is the certified copy of the appeal memo in R.A.No.59/2010. Ex.P33 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in R.A.No.59/2010 wherein the legal heirs of Dodda Rangappa challenged the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.221/2007 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur. The appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record dismissed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Dodda Rangappa vide judgment dated
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 10.04.2014. Ex.P34 is the original genealogy tree of the plaintiffs and defendants. Exs.P35 and 36 are the photographs.
17. In the course of cross-examination, it was suggested to PW.1 that Muneyya filed suit in O.S.No.221/2007 and the said suit was decreed. Against that, an appeal was filed by the legal representatives of Dodda Rangappa in R.A.No.59/2010 and the said appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.01.2014. PW.1 pleads ignorance of the suit filed by Muneyya against the legal representatives of Dodda Rangappa. He admits that he has produced Ex.P8-kasara pahani which discloses that Ranganna S/o Juttayya was cultivating the suit land. He has deposed that it is a false entry and it is elicited that Ranganna S/o Juttayya means Dodda Rangappa S/o Juttayya. He admits the said suggestion. He also admits that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of Dodda Rangappa. It was suggested to PW.1 that Dodda Rangappa and Muneyya jointly filed Form No.7
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 before the Land Tribunal in respect of suit schedule property, but PW.1 pleads ignorance about the said fact and it is elicited that Juttayya had no other landed properties. He also admits that the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in the name of Dodda Rangappa and he pleads ignorance that Dodda Rangappa used to attend the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. It was suggested that the fathers of the plaintiffs were not having any right over the suit schedule property and for the said reason, they did not attend the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. A suggestion was put to PW.1 that whether the plaintiffs and their fathers have challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Dodda Rangappa, but he pleads ignorance. He also admits that they have filed an application to implead themselves as proposed respondents in R.A.No.59/2010 and the said application was rejected and he pleads ignorance about dismissal of R.A.No.59/2010.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019
18. Further, the plaintiffs have examined one Thimmappa as PW.2. He has deposed that he knows the plaintiffs and the defendants and also suit land bearing Sy.No.191 and he has deposed that the suit land was being cultivated by the sons of Juttayya and he came to know that the said land was granted in favour of Dodda Rangappa as Dodda Hanumayya and Sanjeevkumar both were dead at the time of such grant by the Tribunal. Dodda Rangappa taking advantage of the death of their father and brothers, he managed to get granted the occupancy rights, but, the said land was being cultivated by all the family members. It is elicited from the mouth of PW.2 that he does not know why the plaintiffs have filed the present suit. It is elicited that he does not know with regard to which survey number the plaintiffs have filed suit. He was unable to say the boundaries of the suit land and extent of land. He does not know earlier land belongs to whom. He does not know who was the owner of the land.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019
19. The plaintiffs have also examined one Yellappa as PW.3 and he has deposed in the same line of PW.2.
20. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and he has reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the notice for payment of premium. Ex.D2 is the memo issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Revenue, Raichur, which discloses that the Dodda Rangappa filed Form No.7 in respect of land baring Sy.No.191 of Askihal village, Raichur, wherein the Tahsildar has issued direction to the Revenue Inspector vide memo dated 20.11.1978 directing the Revenue Inspector to conduct spot inspection and prepare detailed panchanama about the classification of the land and its value and also to mention if there are any valuable trees, wells, bund, structure, religious institutions etc., are situated in the said land with value. Ex.D3 is the original premium receipt and Exs.D4 and D5 are the challans which disclose that Dodda Rangappa paid the premium in
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 respect of the suit land for grant of occupancy rights. Ex.D6 is the copy of the panchanama which discloses that panchanama was conducted on 05.03.1992 which discloses that as on the date of the panchanama, Dodda Rangappa was in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.191 and Ex.D7 is the Form No.9 which discloses that the Land Tribunal has issued notice to Dodda Rangappa to appear before the Land Tribunal fixing the date of appearance as 28.08.1975. Ex.D8 is the Form No.10. Ex.D9 is the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in respect of the suit land in favour of Dodda Rangappa vide order dated 23.03.1976. Ex.D10 is the RTC extract of suit land for the year 1990-91 wherein the name of Dodda Rangappa is shown as the owner and in possession of the suit land. Ex.D11 is the copy of the RTC extract of suit land which stands in the name of Dodda Rangappa. Exs.D12 to D23 are the land revenue receipts. Ex.D24 is the certified copy of the order sheet of the Land Tribunal. Ex.D25 is the deposition of Dodda Rangappa @ Rangappa before the Land Tribunal. Ex.D26 is the certified copy of
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 the panchanama which discloses that Dodda Rangappa was in possession of the suit land. Ex.D27 is the original General Power of Attorney executed by Muniyya in favour of Rangaswamy to conduct the case in O.S.No.221/2007. Ex.D28 is the certified copy of Form No.7 submitted by Dodda Rangappa before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in favour of Dodda Rangappa. Ex.D29 is the order sheet of the Tahsildar, Raichur. Ex.D30 is the ROR of land in Sy.No.191 which stood in the name of Dodda Rangappa. Ex.D31 is the premium receipt which discloses that Dodda Rangappa and Muneyya have paid premium. Exs.D32 to 35 are the land revenue receipts which discloses that Dodda Rangappa has paid land revenue of the suit land. Exs.D36 and 37 are the ROR of suit land which stood in the name of Rangaswamy S/o Muneyya. Ex.D38 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.221/2007. Ex.D39 is the certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.221/2007. Ex.D40 is the certified copy of the final decree passed in FDP No.11/2014 which was disposed of on 21.07.2015.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 Exs.D41 and 42 are the certified copies of sketch maps. Ex.D43 is the certified copy of the order sheet in R.A.No.59/2010. Ex.D44 is the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur on I.A.No.II in R.A.No.59/2010 which discloses that plaintiff Nos.2 and 5 herein filed an application to implead them as proposed defendants and the said application came to be rejected vide order dated 28.01.2014. Ex.D45 is the certified copy of the order passed in Civil Miscellaneous No.67/2015 dated 11.07.2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, wherein the legal representatives of Muneyya filed petition under Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act seeking direction to the respondents therein to enter the name of the legal heirs of Muneyya in respect of land bearing Sy.No.191 of Askihal village. The said miscellaneous petition was allowed vide order dated 11.07.2016. Ex.D46 is the certified copy of the execution petition in E.P.No.152/2015. Ex.D47 is the certified copy of the delivery warrant issued in E.P.No.152/2015. Ex.D48 is the
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 bailiff report in E.P.No.152/2015. Ex.D49 is the panchanama in E.P.No.152/2015. Ex.D50 is the kabja receipt having delivered the possession in favour of the legal heirs of Muneyya in E.P.No.152/2015. Ex.D51 is the proclamation receipt in E.P.No.152/2015. Ex.D52 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in R.A.No.59/2010. Ex.D53 is the certified copy of the decree passed in R.A.No.59/2010.
21. Further, defendant No.8-Rangaswamy was examined as DW.2 who has deposed in the same line of DW.1.
22. From the perusal of the entire records it discloses that the suit land stood in the name of Dodda Rangappa @ Rangappa and he filed Form No.7 as per Ex.P22 which discloses that Form No.7 was filed by Dodda Rangappa @ Rangappa in respect of the suit land and the Land Tribunal after holding due enquiry passed an order as per Ex.P23. From the perusal of Form No.7 i.e., Ex.P22, it discloses that Dodda Rangappa alone has submitted Form
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 No.7 before the Land Tribunal in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the family. The defendants have produced premium receipt marked as Ex.D31 which discloses that Dodda Rangappa has paid premium for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the suit land. Thus, Ex.P23 proves that the occupancy rights were granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of Dodda Rangappa @ Rangappa and it also discloses that prior to grant of occupancy rights, name of Dodda Rangappa @ Rangappa was appearing in the RTC extract. The plaintiffs have not produced any records to establish that Juttayya was cultivating the suit land at any point of time. Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the said land was granted for and on behalf of the family in the name of Dodda Rangappa @ Rangappa.
23. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.1 in the negative.
24. Point No.2: Muneyya filed suit in O.S.No.221/2007 against the legal representatives of
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 Dodda Rangappa for partition and separate possession. The legal representatives of Dodda Rangappa contested the said suit. The Trial Court after full fledged trial decreed the suit of Muneyya vide judgment dated 26.03.2010. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.221/2007 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.59/2010. During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff Nos.2 and 5 filed an application in I.A.No.II to implead themselves as proposed respondents in the said appeal. The Appellate Court in R.A.No.59/2010 dismissed the application vide order dated 28.01.2014 as per Ex.D44. Further, the Appellate Court has recorded finding while passing an order on I.A.No.II that there is no allegation in the affidavit that the suit land belongs to joint family as ancestral property and also recorded finding that fathers of the applicants therein i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 and 5 never made any claim in respect of the suit property when the matter was pending before the Land Tribunal or even subsequently. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 5 were aware about the
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 suit filed by Muneyya against defendant Nos.1 to 3. The order passed on I.A.No.II was not challenged by the plaintiffs and the said order has attained finality. Therefore, the finding recorded in I.A.No.II by the Appellate Court has attained finality and the same is binding on the plaintiffs.
25. In view of above discussion, we answer point No.2 in the negative.
26. Point No.3: The Trial Court placing reliance on the order of the Land Tribunal, order sheet and judgment passed in O.S.No.221/2007 and order passed on I.A.No.II in R.A.No.59/2010 has rightly held that the occupancy rights were granted in favour of Dodda Rangappa @ Rangappa in his individual capacity and the plaintiffs have no right to claim any share in the suit schedule property. The impugned judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court is just and proper. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment and preliminary decree. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the impugned
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4593-DB RFA No.200175 of 2019 judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court.
27. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.3 in the negative.
28. Point No.4: In view of our answer to point Nos.1 to 3, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal is dismissed.
ii. The judgment and preliminary decree
dated 29.06.2019 passed in
O.S.No.119/2016 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Raichur, is hereby confirmed.
iii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB
Ct: VK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8