Karnataka High Court
Smt Sreedevi vs Smt Lathamani on 24 February, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A.No.189/2022(INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT.SREEDEVI,
W/O. LATE ASHWATHANARAYANA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF HANUMANTHANAGARA,
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI,
SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 126. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.GANGADHARAPPA.A.V., ADV.)
AND:
SMT.LATHAMANI,
W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF HANUMANTHANAGARA,
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 126. ... RESPONDENT
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:26.10.2021
PASSED IN R.A.No.57/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SIRA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED:27.09.2018 PASSED IN O.S.No.302/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SIRA.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal is by the defendant.
2. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit seeking for a
decree of permanent injunction on the premise that she had
purchased the suit property under a registered Sale Deed
dated 21.06.2013 which had been executed in her favour by
one Lakshmidevamma, who, had secured title to the said
property by way of a grant by the Taluka Panchayat under
Hakkupatra dated 20.12.2003. She contended that ever since
the purchase, she was in possession and enjoyment of the
suit property and the defendants, who had no interest over
the said property, were trying to put stone slabs in her
property and trying to usurp her property and as a result of
which, she was constrained to file the suit.
3. Defendants resisted the suit contending that the extent
of Sy.No.222/P1 totally measured 38 acres 15 guntas and out
of the said total extent, an extent of 26 guntas was granted
to them, in which, they were running a Touring Talkies. It
was stated that they were permitted by an order of the
Deputy Commissioner to run the said Touring Talkies. It was
stated that the Tahsildar had also mutated the name of the
defendants in the revenue record.
4. A plea was set up by the defendants that the Secretary
of the President of Gram Panchayat had attempted to
interfere with their possession over the written statement
schedule property which resulted in the filing of the suit in
OS.No.197/2003, which was also decreed in their favour. It
was stated that the plaintiff had no manner of right, title or
interest over the written statement schedule property. It was
also alleged that the Gram Panchayat had cancelled formation
of sites by passing the resolution.
5. The Trial Court, on consideration of evidence, came to
the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove her lawful
possession and dismissed the suit.
6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the
plaintiff.
7. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence,
took a contrary view. The Appellate Court took note of the
categorical admission of D.W.1 to the effect that the suit
property was situated at a distance of 10 feet from his
property and his further admission that the said property had
been granted to Lakshmidevamma. The Appellate Court also
noticed that he had categorically admitted the possession of
the plaintiff over the suit property and Exs.P2 and P3 also
proved the possession of the plaintiff's vendor in respect of
the suit property. On the basis of the said admission, the
Appellate Court reversed the decree of the Trial Court and
decreed the suit.
8. It is against these divergent judgments, the present
second appeal has been preferred.
9. In order to secure a decree of injunction, the plaintiff is
required, in law, to establish the actual possession as on the
date of the suit. In the present case, D.W.1 himself
categorically admitted that the suit property was situated at a
distance of 10 feet away from his property and had been
granted to plaintiff's vendor Lakshmidevamma. He also went
on to admit that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit
property. In the light of this clear admission by the defendant
(D.W.1) that the plaintiff was in possession of her property
which was situated 10 feet away from his property, the
Appellate Court was absolutely justified in granting a decree
of injunction. I find no substantial question of law arising for
consideration in this second appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
