Chandpasha S/O. Alamsab vs Agricultural Produce Marketing
2022 Latest Caselaw 215 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

            R.S.A. No.5400/2013 (DEC/INJ)


BETWEEN

SHRI.CHANDPASHA S/O. ALAMSAB
AGED ABOUT: 62 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ISLAMPUR,
TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL 52328
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
COMMITTEE, GANGAVATHI,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
SRIH.K. CHANDRAMOHAN
S/O. L.M. KIRSHNAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS,
R/O. GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL 52328
                                          ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT    &   DECREE    DTD:08.04.2013   PASSED    IN
R.A.NO.18/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT
GANGAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DTD:02.04.2012 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.
NO.121/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, AT GANGAVATHI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
DECLARATION OF TITLE AND RECOVERY OF POSSESSION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   2




                           JUDGMENT

This regular second appeal is filed challenging the

concurrent finding in the judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.121/2011 on the file of the learned Principal Civil

Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi and the judgment and decree

passed in R.A.No.18/2012 on the file of the learned Senior

Civil Judge, Gangavathi.

2. The suit for declaration and possession filed by

the respondent in this appeal, is decreed and the same has

been confirmed by the First Appellate Court rejecting the

appeal filed by the defendant.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of

this case can be summarized as under:

4. The appellant had filed O.S.No.168/2000 on

the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,

Gangavathi claiming injunction against the present

respondent-Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (for

short, 'APMC'). The said suit was dismissed in the first

instance. The plaintiff therein/appellant herein being

aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dismissing the

suit, had preferred R.A.No.3/2003 before the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Gangavathi. The said appeal was

allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial

Court was set aside and relief of injunction was granted in

favour of the present appellant. The respondent in the said

appeal namely APMC, Gangavathi filed RSA No.1715/2007

before this Court. This Court in terms of the judgment

dated 06.04.2011 dismissed the said appeal. While

dismissing the said appeal, this Court had observed that

the owner can take possession of the property only in a

manner known to law. Taking shelter under this

observation, the respondent-APMC filed a suit for

declaration of title and possession of suit property, in

O.S.No.121/2011 on the file of the learned Principal Civil

Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi. The said suit is decreed.

Challenge to the judgment and decree passed in

R.A.No.18/2012 was unsuccessful. Thus, the judgment and

decree of the trial Court is confirmed. Being aggrieved by

the same, the defendant is in second appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as

well as the respondent.

6. Learned counsel, Smt.Veena Hegde appearing

for the appellant, would contend that the appellant has

purchased the property in the year 1993 through

registered sale deed from the previous owner. It is her

further contention that at the time of purchase of the

property, records stood in the name of the previous owner

and the layout plan also stood in the name of previous

owner. Thus, it was contended that appellant is the rightful

owner of the property and he has constructed the building

in the property. The respondent-APMC which now claims to

have acquired property in the year 1973, has not taken

any steps for evicting the present appellant or restraining

the present appellant from constructing any building till

the suit was filed in the year 2011. Based on

aforementioned contentions, learned counsel urges that

the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well

as the First Appellate Court declaring title and granting

decree for possession requires to be interfered and set

aside.

7. Opposing the contentions of the appellant,

learned counsel, Sri.B Anand Shetty for the respondent-

APMC would urge that the respondent-APMC has acquired

the properties in the year 1973 itself by taking recourse to

the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to

the respondent, the property could not have been sold by

the previous owner in the year 1993, as the respondent-

APMC was the lawful owner since 1973. Since the appellant

claims to have purchased the property from a person who

had no title, the appellant has no right to remain in

possession of the property. Accordingly, he would urge

that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court

which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court are in

accordance with law and no interference is called for in

exercise of powers under Section 100 of Code of Civil

Procedure.

8. This Court perused the judgment and decree

passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate

Court. The contentions raised at the Bar are considered.

9. The records placed before the trial Court would

reveal that the land in question is acquired by the

respondent-APMC in 1973. The acquisition is not

challenged by the then owner. Though the previous owner

has executed registered sale deed in 1993, in the name of

the present appellant, the appellant does not acquire any

title over the said property. Mere registration of a

document is not sufficient to convey the title. To convey

the title, the vendor must possess the title. Since the

vendor lost his title in 1973 on account of acquisition of

property by the respondent-APMC, the appellant has not

acquired any title over the property.

10. From the materials placed before the Court, it

can be safely inferred that the present suit is one for

declaration of title and possession based on title. Since the

appellant has not disputed the acquisition of land by the

respondent-APMC under the provisions of Land Acquisition

Act, 1894, the title of the respondent-APMC is established.

In a suit for possession based on title, once the title is

established, the suit cannot be dismissed unless the

defendant establishes adverse possession. In the instant

case the defendant-appellant has not raised defence of

adverse possession. When the plaintiff is the owner of the

property, the defendant has no right to remain in

possession of the said property. Thus, there is no ground

to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the

trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

11. Under these circumstances, absolutely there is

no merit in the appeal filed by the defendant. The trial

Court as well as the First Appellate Court are justified in

decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and

possession. No substantial questions of law arise in this

appeal.

12. However, before dismissing the appeal, it is to

be noticed that the defendant/appellant has purchased the

property under registered sale deed being misled by

entries in the revenue records and layout plan. During the

course of hearing the learned counsel for the respondent

would submit that the respondent-APMC has paid

compensation to the previous owner for having acquired

the land. In that event, the remedy for the present

appellant is to sue the previous owner to recover the

compensation paid in respect of land covered by sale deed

of 1993, along with damages. Right of the appellant to sue

his vendor for appropriate relief provided under law

subject to just exceptions recognized under law, is not

disturbed on account of dismissal of this appeal. With

these observations, the appeal stands dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, pending

applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and

accordingly, they are disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE sh