Karnataka High Court
Dasara Ganganna S/O Late Dasara ... vs Gangamma W/O Late Hanumanthappa on 23 February, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
R.S.A.NO. 100750 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. DASARA GANGANNA,
S/O LATE DASARA TIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O U.RAJPUR VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK,
BELLARI DISTRICT-582307
2. D.G.VENUGOPAL,
S/O D.S.GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O U-RAJAPUR VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT-582307
3. SMT.DASARA YELLAMMA,
S/O LATE DASARA TIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/O U-RAJAPUR VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT-582307
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN PRABHAKAR TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. GANGAMMA,
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
2
R/O U-RAJAPUR VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-582307
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M.G.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE PRAYING AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 27.08.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.75/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KUDLIGI, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:
27.11.2013 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.83/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SANDUR, DECREEING THE
SUIT FILED FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THIS
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful
defendants who are questioning the concurrent judgments and
decrees of the Courts below granting perpetual injunction and
thereby restraining the present appellants-defendants from
interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) The plaintiff filed a bare suit for injunction. The
plaintiff claimed that the State Government granted the suit
schedule property on 19.5.1978 and accordingly, saguvali chit
is also issued. Plaintiff claims that she is in peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property
without obstruction from any body. The plaintiff further
specifically contended that defendant No.1 is the adjacent
owner of the land towards eastern side of the suit schedule
property and defendant No.2 is the owner of the adjacent land
towards northern side of the suit schedule property. The
plaintiff specifically contended that defendants 2 and 3 have
obtained permanent injunction in O.S.68/2010 by suppressing
the material facts. The plaintiff further pleaded that there is a
boundary dispute between the plaintiff and defendants for a
quite long time and therefore, there is a serious dispute
between plaintiff and defendants and a criminal case was also
initiated falsely against the plaintiff's son by the defendants.
The plaintiff further claimed that defendants are politically
influential persons and they are trying to interfere with the
suit schedule property on the strength of the decree granted
in O.S.68/2010. On these set of pleadings, the plaintiff filed a
bare suit for injunction against the defendants.
(b) On receipt of suit summons, the defendants tendered
appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the
entire averments made in the plaint. The main contention of
the defendants in the written statement is that the plaintiff's
name was entered in the record of rights only in the year
2000-01 and therefore, claimed that plaintiff is not at all in
possession of the suit schedule property.
(c) The defendants also contended that the plaintiff
though was granted with the suit land, he has failed to
cultivate continuously for a period of three years and
therefore, claimed that the suit property is liable to be
forfeited by the Government. On the contrary, the defendants
specifically pleaded that defendant No.1 is the owner of the
land bearing Survey no.108 of U. Rajapura village measuring
10 acres having purchased the same under two separate sale
deeds. On these set of defence, the present defendants
disputed the alleged possession as claimed by plaintiff.
(d) The trial Court having assessed ocular and
documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the
affirmative and has come to the conclusion that plaintiff has
succeeded in proving that she is in lawful possession and
enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of
the filing of the suit. The Trial Court while dealing with Issue
No.2 has also come to the conclusion that plaintiff has
succeeded in proving the alleged interference by the
defendants. On these set of reasonings, the Trial Court has
proceeded to decree the suit thereby restraining the present
defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession and
enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
(e) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the
Appellate Court in R.A.No.75 /2013. The Appellate Court
having independently assessed the ocular and documentary
evidence has concurred with the findings of the Trial Court.
The Appellate Court having examined the ocular evidence of
the parties has taken note of the fact that defendants have
admitted in cross-examination that plaintiff is in possession of
four acres of land in Survey No.108. Appellate Court having
examined these categorical admissions made by the
defendants in cross-examination coupled with Ex.P12 which is
a saguvali chit issued by competent authority, has also come
to the conclusion that the State Government has granted four
acres of land in Survey No.108 which is forthcoming from
Ex.P12. On these set of reasoning, the Appellate Court has
proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
(f)It is against these concurrent judgments and decrees
of the Courts below, the defendants are before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-
defendants and the learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff.
Perused the judgments under challenge.
5. The plaintiff claims that the competent authority
has granted the land in her favour on 19.5.1978. To
substantiate her claim she has produced the certified copy of
saguvali chit, which is marked at Ex.P12. The plaintiff to
prove her lawful possession has also relied on record of rights
which are produced at Exs.P1 to 5. On examination of these
clinching evidence, both the Courts have concurrently held
that plaintiff has succeeded in proving her right over the suit
schedule property which is based on saguvali chit issued by
the competent authority and the same is produced at Ex.P12.
Both the Courts have taken judicial note of record of rights
wherein the plaintiff's name is duly mutated in the cultivator's
column. Coupled with these documents, the plaintiff has also
succeeded in eliciting in cross-examination of D.W.2 who has
admitted in unequivocal terms that it is the plaintiff who is in
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
These concurrent findings on disputed question of fact are
based on legal evidence led by the plaintiff and also the
categorical admissions elicited in cross-examination of D.W.2
in regard to possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule
property. Therefore, I do not find any infirmities are
illegalities in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
No substantial question of law arises.
Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
