Karnataka High Court
B S Sugam vs Laxmi on 21 June, 2022
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
RSA No. 645 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2020 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI B.S.SUGAM S/O LATE SURESH GOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O KOLAPETHOTA,BILAGALI VILLAGE
HIREBYLE POST,MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, PIN 577 132. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI KUMAR N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAXMI W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2. SHOBA D/O LATE KRISHNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
3. SANTHOSHA S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
Digitally signed by 4. SANDEEPA S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA
VEENA KUMARI B AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
ALL ARE R/O BILAGALI VILLAGE
BALUR HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT PIN 577 132. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS R.S.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.06.2019 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.24/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., MUDIGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED IN
O.S.94/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., MUDIGERE.
-2-
RSA No. 645 of 2020
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.94/2015 dated 07.09.2018 by Addl. Civil Judge &
JMFC., Mudigere and also in R.A.No.24/2018 dated 03.06.2019
by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Mudigere, this appeal is filed.
2. This is defendant's appeal against judgment and
decree of permanent injunction granted against appellants
restraining them from trespassing into schedule property or
dispossessing plaintiffs from suit property etc.
3. O.S.No.94/2015 was filed by respondents herein
stating that original plaintiff - Krishne Gowda was owner in
possession of land bearing Survey no.8 measuring 05 acres 12
guntas of wet land situated at Bilagali village, Balur Hobli,
Mudigere taluk(hereinafter referred to as 'suit property' for
short). It was stated that said land was granted to Krishne
Gowda by Land Tribunal in proceedings no.LRF(7)2819/1976 on
15.10.1982. Defendant, who was son of his ex-landowner
under whom plaintiff was tenant. After conferring occupancy
rights in favour of plaintiff, defendant did not have any right,
RSA No. 645 of 2020
title or interest over suit property, began interfering with
plaintiffs' peaceful possession and cultivation by grazing cattle
on suit lands. On said cause of action, suit was filed.
4. Upon entering appearance, defendant filed written
statement, denying all plaint averments. He denied having any
land adjacent to plaintiffs' land and also allegation about
trespass or interference with plaintiffs' possession.
5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following
issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
lawful possession over the suit schedule
property as on the date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference by the defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
as claimed in the plaint?
4. What order or decree?
6. During pendency of suit, original plaintiff died. His
legal representatives are brought on record. Plaintiff no.1(c)
got himself examined as PW.1 and exhibits P.1 to P.7 were
marked. Defendant was examined himself as DW.1, but no
documentary evidence was led.
RSA No. 645 of 2020
7. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1 to
3 in affirmative and decreed suit. Aggrieved by same,
defendant filed R.A.No.24/2018 on several grounds.
8. Based on contentions, first appellate Court framed
following points for consideration. And after re-examining
contentions and evidence on record, it answered points no.1 to
3 in affirmative, point no.4 in negative and point no.5 by
dismissing appeal. Against concurrent finding, defendant is in
appeal.
9. Sri Ravi Kumar N.R., learned counsel for appellant
submitted that there is delay of 117 days in filing appeal.
I.A.1/2020 is filed for its condonation. It was submitted that
delay was on account of ill-health and communication gap with
counsel.
10. As delay was not substantial, instead of issuing
notice on said application and with a view to satisfy my
conscience, matter was heard on merits.
11. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that
appellant was defendant in O.S.No.94/2015 filed by respondent
for permanent injunction. Basis of suit claim was grant of suit
land by Land Tribunal to plaintiff. It was stated in plaint that
RSA No. 645 of 2020
defendant's father was original owner of suit land. Original
plaintiff Krishne Gowda was tenant of said land had filed
application for grant of occupancy rights, which was granted by
Land Tribunal. Though, plaintiff was in possession and
cultivation of same, defendant interfered with plaintiff's
possession leading to filing of suit. Though, defendant admitted
grant of suit land in favour of plaintiff by Land Tribunal and
plaintiffs' title and possession over same, defendant denied
interfering with plaintiffs' possession and opposed suit only on
lack of cause of action.
12. It was submitted that trial Court by taking note of
denial of plaintiffs' possession over suit property and defendant
contesting suit inferred interference and decreed suit.
13. In appeal, after re-examination, first appellate Court
confirmed findings and dismissed appeal.
14. Learned counsel submitted that both Courts failed to
appreciate oral and documentary evidence while passing
impugned judgment. Deposition of PW.1, wherein he admitted
that property of defendant was far away from plaintiffs' suit
land and contended that said admission rendered interference
RSA No. 645 of 2020
with plaintiffs' possession over suit property impossible. It was
submitted that both Courts failed to consider that Exs.P.1, P.2
and P.4 were old documents and did not indicate plaintiffs'
possession as on date of suit. It was also contended that
impugned judgments lacked judicious reasoning.
15. Heard learned counsel; perused impugned judgment
and decree and record.
16. While trial Court proceeded to record finding
regarding plaintiffs' possession over suit property in affirmative
as same was not disputed by defendant.
17. Insofar as interference, it held very fact that
defendant was contesting suit as substantiating interference
and on said finding, decreed suit.
18. In first appeal findings were affirmed on ground that
defendant denied possession of plaintiff over suit property and
also denied boundaries of suit property as these contentions
substantiated interference.
19. Findings of both Courts insofar as possession and
interference are finding of fact recorded after examination of
RSA No. 645 of 2020
pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record. Grounds
urged in this appeal, at best, may indicate errors even if
established. Concurrent findings on facts cannot be interfered
with. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise for
consideration in this appeal.
20. Therefore, as no useful purpose would be served by
issuing notice on application for condonation of delay,
application is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also
dismissed.
In view disposal of main appeal, I.A.No.2/2020 does not
survive for consideration, same is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*
