Sri S.K. Chikkanna vs Sri S.K. Lakshmaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 3116 Kant

                          1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

           R.S.A.NO.1739 OF 2013(DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI. S.K. CHIKKANNA
     S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

2.   SRI. S.K. RANGANATHAIAH
     S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

3.   SRI. S.K. LAKSHMAIAH
     S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

4.   SRI. S.K. SRINIVASA
     S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

5.   SRI. S.K. DHANANJAYA
     S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

     ALL ARE R/AT SARASWATHIPURA
     VILLAGE AND POST
     KASABA HOBLI
     KADUR TALUK -577 549
     CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT.
                                   ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANE FOR
    SRI. S.V. PRAKASH ADVOCATE)
                                2


AND:

1.      SRI. S.K. LAKSHMAIAH
        S/O S.B. KRISHNAPPA
        AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

2.      SRI. S.K. PADMANABHA
        S/O S.B. KRISHNAPPA
        AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

        ALL ARE R/AT SARASWATHIPURA
        VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI
        KADUR TALUK - 577 548
        CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT.
                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2)

      THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
03.08.2013 PASSED IN R.A. NO.73/2009 ON THE FILE OF
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKMAGALURU, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE
DATED:09.07.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.14/2007 ON THE FILE OF
CIVIL JUDGE(SR. DN.) AND JMFC, KADUR.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

The present regular second appeal is filed by the

plaintiffs aggrieved by the concurrent findings and

conclusions rendered in the judgment and decree dated

09/07/2009 passed in OS.No.14/2007 on the file of the

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadur (for short

hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and the

judgment and decree dated 03/08/2013 passed in

RA.No.73/2009 on the file of the 1st Additional District

Judge, Chikmagalur (for short hereinafter referred to as

'the first appellate court').

2. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the trial court.

3. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for

declaration that they are the legal representatives of

deceased Rangaiah and to declare that they are the

absolute owners in possession of plaint schedule property

bearing Sy.No.24 measuring 9 acres 35 guntas being the

legal representatives of said deceased Rangaiah and for

consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is the

case of the plaintiffs that one Balappa had three sons and

a daughter by name Krishnappa, Chikkanna, Dodda

Hanumaiah and Rangamma. Except Chikkanna, other

children of Balappa died issueless. That the said

Chikkanna had three sons and two daughters, namely,

1) Rangaiah 2) Lakshmaiah 3) Krishnappa 4)

Thimmamma and 5) Balamma. That the plaintiffs are

the children of Krishnappa. That the plaint schedule

property belonged to Rangaiah @ Ranga who is the elder

brother of the father of the plaintiff. The said Rangaiah

had died as a bachelor. As such, property had devolved

upon the father of the plaintiff namely S.C.Krishnappa as

he was only the legal heir. That the plaint schedule

property had been forfeited to the Government for non-

payment of Kandayam. That in the year 1957 father of

the plaintiff had made an application before the Revenue

Authority for restoration of property in his name. That

the defendants are the natives of Kachapur Village and

they are not concerned with the family of Rangaiah @

Ranga. The original ancestor of the defendants is one

Krishnappa S/o Balananjappa and the defendants taking

undue advantage of similarity in the names in the

pedigree of the plaintiff and defendants are making

claims over the suit schedule property. The defendnats

had no right, title and interest in the suit schedule

property. However, they had filed a petition before the

Revenue Authority seeking restoration of the suit

schedule property in their names. There was a revenue

dispute and the matter was taken before Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in revision petition

No.122/2002. The Tribunal had directed the parties to

approach the civil court establishing their right and title.

As such, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for

declaration and injunction.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their

counsel. Defendant No.2 filed written statement which

was adopted by defendant No.1. It is contended by the

defendants that the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor

possessors of the suit schedule property as they are not

descendants of Rangaiah @ Ranga. That the genealogy

furnished by the plaintiff is incorrect. The relationship of

father of the plaintiff with that of Rangaiah and claim of

plaintiff that father of plaintiff making an application

before the Revenue Authority seeking restoration of the

land also denied. It is specifically contended by the

defendants that land bearing Sy.No.24 measuring 9 acres

35 guntas of Kannenahally village is the ancestral

property of defendants, which was owned by Rangappa

S/o Chikkanna. The said Chikkanna was the propositor of

the defendant's family who had three sons by name

Rangappa, Lakshmaiah and Kenchabalaiah. Rangappa

being eldest member had inherited the property, who

died unmarried. Thereafter, the property continued to

be in the possession of Lakshmaiah and Kenchabalaiah.

Kenchabalaiah had one son by name Balanajappa, who

has got three sons by name S.B.Kenchabalaiah,

S.B.Krishnappa and Lakshmaiah, the said S.B.Krishnappa

had 2 sons who are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in this

case, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property measuring 9 acres 35 guntas. That

they have submitted the application to the Assistant

Commissioner, Tarikere for restoring the katha in their

names to which the plaintiffs had filed objections. The

defendants preferred appeal in RA.No.24/1992-93 before

the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, who had

directed to enter the names of defendants to the land by

order dated 13/02/1995. The plaintiffs had preferred

writ petition in W.P.No.32150/1997, in which the matter

was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh

disposal. The Deputy Commissioner, once again had

directed to enter the names of the defendants.

Meanwhile, the Tahsildar, Kadur and Revenue Inspector

had visited the suit property and had confirmed the

defendants were cultivating the suit schedule property

and were in possession of 7 acres 35 guntas and

remaining 2 acres is in possession of some other person.

That the plaintiffs though they are not the legal

representatives of Rangapa, taking undue advantage of

similarity in the name of Krishnappa had filed the suit.

Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings framed

the following issues:

i. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, suit schedule property Sy.No.24, measuring 9 acres 35 guntas situated at Kannenahally village,

Birur Hobli, was owned by Rangaiah @ Ranga?

ii. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, Rangaiah @ Ranga is the elder brother of father of plaintiff and after the death of Ranga, property has devolved on the younger brother S.C.Krishnappa and thereafter plaintiff has inherited the schedule property being legal heir of S.C.Krishnappa and is in possession of the land?

iii. Whether the defendants prove that, the suit schedule land was their ancestral property and stood in the name of Rangaiah @ Ranga S/o Ranga S/o Chikkanna?

iv.    Whether     the       defendants    further
       prove     that,    the      properties   are
       inherited by the family members
       and defendants No.1 and 2 are in
       possession?

v.     Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to

relief of declaration and injunction?

vi. What decree or order?

6. The trial court recorded the evidence and by

its judgment and decree dated 09/07/2009, dismissed

the suit inter alia holding that the plaintiffs had not

produced any material evidence establishing their

relationship with Rangaiah @ Ranga and also failed to

prove that they had inherited property of Rangaiah. That

the revenue records produced by the plaintiffs and

defendants though reflecting the name of Ranga, the

plaintiffs had not produced any material evidence to

corroborate their relationship with said Ranga and that

the plaintiffs have also not produced any evidence

regarding they being possessors and cultivators of the

suit schedule property. On the other hand, the trial

court has taken note of the fact that the defendants have

examined 4 witnesses as DWs.2 to 5 the owners of land

adjacent to the suit schedule property, who have

categorically deposed that the defendants were

cultivating the land since 35-40 years. On the contrary,

the plaintiffs had not produced any materials to prove

their possession over the suit schedule property. The

trial court, taking note of the contentions raised by the

defendants and also document at Ex.D2 and the material

evidence namely that of DWs.2 to 5 regarding possession

of the property by the defendants has accepted the plea

of the defendants.

7. The aforesaid facts and circumstances and

reasoning given by the trial court has been accepted and

confirmed by the first appellate court. The First

Appellate Court at Para 19 of its Judgment, has held as

under:

19. While passing the order by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, in R.A.No.24/1992-93 dt:13.02.1995 clearly held that, the defendants are the nearest legal heir to Ranga @ Rangappa. Again the said finding has been reiterated in the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 09.09.1997, holding that the defendants are the nearest legal heirs to the deceased Ranga and father of the defendants by name Krishnappa was the nearest legal heir of Ranga @ Rangappa. Infact the revenue Inspector and Village Accountant have collected statement of witnesses, mahazar, at the time of conducting measurement of the land, for that (1) Shekharappa (2) Ramachandrappa (3) Veerabhadrappa (4) Dasegowda and others have subscribed their signature to the mahazar dt:22.07.1995. In fact Dw.2 to 5

who are no way interested in the property have clearly stated that, the defendants are the nearest legal heirs of propositus Ranga. In this behalf, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the parties and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, it is not proper to interfere with the findings given by the trial Court."

8. Since the courts below have come to categoric

conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to establish their

relationship/connection with Rangaiah @ Ranga and also

their possession over the suit schedule property and

further held defendants to be the nearest legal heirs to

deceased Rangaiah, the plaintiffs would not be entitled

for the relief of declaration and hence, dismissed the

aforesaid regular appeals.

9. Since the plaintiffs have not established their

relationship with their purported ancestors in the manner

known to law without which their claim over the property

cannot be entertained, no infirmity or illegality can be

found with the judgment and decree passed by the trial

court and the first appellate court and as such, no

substantial question of law arise in this matter requiring

consideration. In the result, the following:

ORDER

i) Regular Second Appeal No.1739/2013

filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed.

      ii)   The    Judgment        and   Secree     dated

            09/07/2009 passed in         OS.No.14/2007

            by the trial court and Judgment and

            Decree   dated    03/08/2013     passed    in

RA.No.73/2009 by the first appellate

court are confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MKM