Karnataka High Court
A.R. Krishnappa vs The Secretary on 15 March, 2022
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
R.S.A. NO.1139 OF 2016 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
A.R. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. RAMACHANDRA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT B. BEERANAHALLI,
SHIMOGA TALUK-577201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
B. BEERANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH,
B. BEERANAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.
2. THE PRESIDENT
B. BEERANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH,
B. BEERANAHALLI,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 26.03.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.85/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.4.2015 PASSED IN
2
O.S.NO.309/2007 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree of both the Courts by
which they held that the plaintiff was not the owner and
that he was not in possession of the suit schedule
property.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as
they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. The suit in O.S. No.309/2007 was filed for
perpetual injunction in respect of a property which
belonged to the defendants and was allegedly granted to
the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that after the site was
granted, he laid a foundation and put up a temporary
structure. Later, When he removed the temporary
structure to put up a permanent construction, the
defendants objected and attempted to take over forcible
possession of the suit property. The plaintiff, therefore,
contended that he was in possession of the suit property
and sought to protect his possession by filing the present
suit for perpetual injunction.
4. The suit was contested by defendants who
claimed that the plaintiff was employed with the
defendants and he had fabricated a document and claimed
it to be a grant so as to make wrongful gain. It was stated
that the suit property was granted to the Committee of
Durgamma Temple of village which was in possession of
the suit property. They contended that the plaintiff was
never in possession of the suit property.
5. Based on these rival contentions, the case was
set down for trial. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1
and he marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. He also
examined two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3. The
defendants examined its Panchayath Development Officer
as D.W.1 who marked documents as Exs.D-1 to D-27.
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,
the Trial Court held that Ex.P-3 was a resolution under
which the suit property was allegedly granted to the
plaintiff and that Ex.P-6 was the grant certificate. It
noticed that the defendants had discussed the legality of
the resolution at Ex.P-3 and the consequent illegal revenue
entries at Ex.P-6 and had consequently cancelled the
same. Later, the suit property was allotted to the
Committee of Durgamma temple. Subsequent to the said
resolution, the possession of the suit property was handed
over to the Committee. The Trial Court noticed the
evidence of P.W.2, Ex-President of Mandal Panchayath, B.
Beeranahalli who deposed that the plaintiff had concocted
the resolution and the consequent grant certificate, which
was cancelled. P.W.3 admitted that plaintiff was employed
with the defendants as an Attender. The Trial Court,
therefore, disbelieved the claim of the plaintiff that he was
lawfully granted the suit property. It also noticed that the
plaintiff had not issued a notice as required under Section
289 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and hence
dismissed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the plaintiff
filed an appeal in R.A.No.85/2015. The First Appellate
Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the
counsel for the parties and framed points for consideration.
The First Appellate Court after considering the oral and
documentary evidence, held that as per the say of the
plaintiff himself, the grant made in his favour was
cancelled and that he failed to challenge the cancellation of
the grant of suit property. It also held that the plaintiff
failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit
property and hence dismissed the appeal.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment
and Decree, the present Regular Second Appeal is filed.
9. The learned counsel for appellant submitted
that there is ample proof to show that the suit property
was granted to the plaintiff. If the grant was cancelled,
the recovery of possession should be only in accordance
with law and the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed from the
property. He, therefore, submitted that the suit for
injunction was maintainable and the plaintiff was entitled
to protect his possession against forcible dispossession.
10. I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the plaintiff / appellant.
11. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was
employed as an Attender with the defendants. It is also
not in dispute that the alleged grant in favour of the
plaintiff was held to be illegal and the same was cancelled.
It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff did not take any
steps to challenge the cancellation of the alleged grant.
There is no material placed on record before the Trial
Court to establish that the plaintiff was ever put in
possession or was in possession as on the date of the suit.
In the absence of any material to establish possession of
the suit property as on the date of the suit, the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court were justified in dismissing
the suit filed by the plaintiff. There is no merit in this
Regular Second Appeal and hence the same is dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for
consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hnm
