Karnataka High Court
The Gram Panchayat vs Mahila Mandal on 23 February, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
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
RSA.NO. 100068 OF 2014 (INJ)
BETWEEN
1. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT NAVILAGONA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
N. P. NAIK,
AGE: 48 YEARS, NAVILAGONA,
TQ: HONNAVAR,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA -581301.
2. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT NAVILAGONA
THE PRESIDENT
SRI SURESH R PATEGAR
AGE: 48 YEARS,
NAVILAGONA, TQ: HONNAVAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA 581301.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PALLAVI PATIL, ADVOCATE, FOR
SRI. F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MAHILA MANDAL NAVILAGONA,
TQ:HONNAVAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SMT. VILASINI W/O. NAGESH BHAT
AGE 57 YEARS,
R/O.NAVILAGONA, TQ: HONNAVAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA -581301.
2
2. MAHILA MANDAL NAVILAGONA,
TQ:HONNAVAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
THE PRESIDENT
SMT SUDHA W/O. NARAYAN BHAT
AGE: 47 YEARS
R/O. NAVILAGONA, TQ: HONNAVAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. J. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2013 PASSED
BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HONNAVAR, IN R.A.NO.125/2005
AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.10.2005 PASSED BY
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), HONNAVAR IN
O.S.NO.90/1996 IN DECREEING THE SUIT MAY KINDLY BE SET
ASIDE AND THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS MAY KINDLY BE
DISMISSED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
2. The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful
defendants questioning the judgment and decree of the courts
below wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff-society is decreed,
which is confirmed by the first appellate court.
3. Respondents-plaintiffs filed bare suit for injunction
by specifically contending that with the help of residents of
Vavilagona village, a building was constructed in the suit
property bearing Sy.No.177/3. Respondent-plaintiffs claim that
they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule property. The present appellants on receipt of
summons contested the proceedings and specifically contended
that suit property belongs to Panchayat. It was specifically
contended in the written statement that adjoining property
bearing Sy.No.177/2 is also owned by panchayat and common
building was constructed by the appellants. It was only one
room which was given to respondents-plaintiffs on licence basis.
Appellants further contended that panchayat is in need of
additional space and a notice was issued calling upon
respondents-plaintiffs to deliver possession and that one room
which was given under licence to respondents-plaintiffs.
4. Based on rival claims, trial court framed issues.
Respondents-plaintiffs to substantiate their claim produced
documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P11.
Appellants/defendants led ocular evidence by examining its
official and no documentary evidence was placed on record.
5. The Trial Court having examined the documentary
evidence adduced by plaintiff-society has proceeded to record a
finding that the plaintiff-society has succeeded in establishing
lawful possession over the suit property. The Trial Court has
also recorded a finding that the appellants-defendants have
interfered with the possession of plaintiff-society and therefore,
suit came to be decreed.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial
Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the First
Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court on reappreciation of
ocular and documentary evidence, having verified the records
was of the view that the appellants-defendants having taken a
specific contention that they have inducted the plaintiff-society
pursuant to licence, is not corroborated by producing
documentary evidence. The First Appellate Court, having
reappreciated the entire evidence on record, has also taken note
of categorical admission given by DW2, who has admitted in his
evidence that it the plaintiff-society is in possession of the suit
property. Both the Courts below have proceeded to decline the
claim of appellants-defendants and have come to the conclusion
that the plaintiff-society is in possession of the suit property and
the same is evident from the documents adduced by the
plaintiffs. On these set of reasons, the First Appellate Court has
proceeded to dismiss the appeal thereby confirming the
judgment passed by the trial Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants-defendants and the learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs.
8. On perusal of Ex.P11 shows that it is styled as a
"gift deed". The said document is executed by one Shivaram
Venkatappa Bhat. Under the said unregistered document, it is
Shivaram Bhat, who claims that he is owner of the present
property and he has gifted to present plaintiff-Mahila Mandal to
utilize it for construction of building by accepting grant from the
government. DW2 in cross-examination admits that Survey
No.177/2 was also gifted by said Shivaram Bhat. If this
evidence on record is taken into consideration, then the claim of
the appellants-Panchayath that this property is owned by them
and therefore it has rightly issued notice calling upon the
plaintiff-society to handover possession cannot be acceded to. If
appellants-Panchayath was really owner of the suit property,
then it was incumbent on the part of the appellants-defendants
in leading rebuttal evidence. No title documents are produced.
The records produced clearly indicate that there is a structure
put up by the plaintiffs-society and they are in possession of the
suit property. Both the Courts below having taken note of all
these aspects have proceeded to grant injunction. I do not find
any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by
both the Courts below. In absence of rebuttal evidence and
having regard to the fact that material placed on record
indicates that plaintiff-society is in possession, both the Courts
were justified in granting perpetual injunction restraining the
appellants-defendants from interfering with peaceful possession
of the plaintiff-society over the suit property. No substantial
question of law is involved in the present appeal. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
9. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS/YAN/-
