Karnataka High Court
Sri N Narayanaswamy vs Smt Munimaramma on 2 June, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
R.F.A.NO.1997 OF 2006 (INJ)
BETWEEN
1. SRI. N. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE NARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
1(A) SRI. MANJUNATH,
S/O N.NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
1(B) SRI. RAMESH,
S/O N. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. SRI. N. SRINIVAS,
S/O LATE NARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2(A) SRI. SURESH KUMAR,
S/O S SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
2(B) SRI. SATISH KUMAR,
S/O N. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
3. SRI. N. VENUGOPAL,
S/O LATE NARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ALL THE ABOVE PERSONS ARE
R/AT NO.2/1, 'G' 6TH CROSS, JOGUPALYA, ULSOOR,
BANGALORE - 560 008.
2
II 1. SRI. V. KESHAVALU,
S/O LATE VENKATSWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
1(a) SRI. K. HEMANTH KUMAR,
S/O V. KESHAVALU,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
1(b) SRI. K. VINOD KUMAR,
S/O V. KESHAVALU,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT NO.144/1, 18TH 'A' MAIN,
MUNESWARA BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 026.
1(c) SRI. P. MOHAN RAMU,
S/O LATE PADMANABA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO.21, 7TH CROSS, III BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE.
1(d) SRI. P. THRILOK CHANDER,
S/O LATE PURUSHOTHAMA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT NO.201, SHRI. RAMANJANEY MAIN ROAD,
HANUMANTH NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 019.
1(e) SMT. SAROJAMMA,
W/O KADIRI NARISIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT MILK MEN STREET,HOSKOTE,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
III. 1. SMT. V. RAJAMMA,
W/O LATE N. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
2. SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY,
S/O LATE SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
3. SRI. SURESH BABU,
S/O LATE SRINIVAS,
3
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
4. SRI. RAVICHANDRA,
S/O LATE SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
5. SRI.SOMASHEKAR,
S/O LATE SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
6. S. PADMAVATHI,
D/O LATE SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
ALL THE ABOVE PERSONS ARE
R/AT NO.79, 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 038.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI. B.S. NAGENDRA,
S/O LATE B.SESHAGIRI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.296, 13TH CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMIPURA,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 086.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H.R.ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. MUNIMARAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS,
2. SRI. KATAPPA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
3. SRI. CHINNAPPA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
4
4. SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
5. SRI. YELLAPPA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
6. SRI. VENKATESH,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.250,
ARASAPPA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS,
KRISHNAIAHBA PALYA,
BEHIND NGEF FACTORY,
BANGALORE - 560 038.
...RESPONDENTS
(APPEAL AGAINST R1 TO R5 DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED
29.09.2010;
R6 SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.6.2006
PASSED IN O.S.NO.16875/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII
ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in
O.S.No.16875/2005 is directed against the impugned
judgment & decree dated 06.06.2006 whereby the
aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for
permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of
suit schedule properties was dismissed by the trial
Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants
and perused the material on record. The respondents
having been served with notice of this appeal have
remained unrepresented and have chosen not to
contest the appeal.
3. A perusal of material on record indicates
that the appellants-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid
suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-
defendants restraining them from alienating,
encumbering or creating third party rights over the
suit schedule immovable properties. In support of
their contention, it was contended that suit schedule
properties was owned and possessed by the
appellants and despite not having any right, title,
interest or possession over the suit schedule
properties, the respondents-defendants attempted to
interfere with the appellants possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and
consequently, the appellants had no option but to
institute the aforesaid suit for perpetual injunction and
other reliefs before the trial Court. The suit summons
and notice were duly served on the respondents who
remained ex-parte and did not contest the suit.
4. On behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs,
appellant No.2-plaintiff No.2 Sri. Keshavalu, filed his
affidavit evidence as PW1 and documentary evidence
at Exs.P.1 to P13 were marked. As stated supra, the
defendants-respondents remained ex-parte and did
not contest the suit nor cross examine PW1 or adduce
any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
Pursuant thereto, the trial Court heard learned counsel
for the appellants and framed following points for
consideration:
i) Whether plaintiffs are able to show
their lawful possession over the suit
schedule property as on the date of
the suit?
ii) Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged
obstructions?
iii) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the
relief claimed?
iv) What order?
5. By the impugned judgment and decree, the
trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellants-
plaintiffs mainly on the ground that there was dispute
with regard to identity and location of the suit
schedule properties and came to the conclusion that
appellants/plaintiffs were not in possession or
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants
and perused the material on record.
7. The following points arises for consideration
in the present appeal:
1) Whether the trial Court was justified in
dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs?
2). Whether the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court warrants interference
in the present appeal?
Re: Point Nos.(1) and (2)
A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree
discloses that despite having referred to the
unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged
pleadings and evidence of the appellants, the trial
Court failed to consider and appreciate the material on
record including the survey records, revenue records
and other documents which clearly established that in
the absence of any defense or rebuttal by way of
pleadings & evidence in this regard put forth by the
respondents-defendants before the trial Court, there
was no dispute, much any serious dispute with regard
to location or identity of the suit schedule properties
as erroneously held by the trial Court. Under these
circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that
trial Court completely misdirected itself in coming to
the erroneous conclusion that there was a dispute
with regard to identity and location of the suit
schedule properties without appreciating that in the
light of the unimpeachable, uncontroverted and
unchallenged pleadings and evidence of the
appellants-plaintiffs with regard to their title,
possession as well as identity and location of the suit
schedule properties, which had not been disputed or
contested by the respondents-defendants, the
question of there arising any dispute with regard to
identity or location of the suit schedule properties did
not arise and as such, the erroneous conclusion
revolting in the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.
8. Upon re-appreciation, revaluation and
reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am
of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court suffers from
various illegalities and infirmities warranting
interference by this Court in the present appeal
particularly when the respondents-defendants neither
contested the suit before the trial court nor in the
present appeal before this Court. In the result, I pass
the following:
ORDER
I. Appeal is hereby allowed.
II. Impugned judgment and decree
dated 06.06.2006 hereby is set aside
III. Suit of the appellants-plaintiffs is
decreed as prayed for by them in the
suit.
No costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
DS
