Sri Eranna vs The Panchayat Development ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5482 Kant

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

              R.S.A. NO.47 OF 2019 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI ERANNA
S/O CHANNAMALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KAMMATHAMARIKUNTE VILLAGE,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA-577522.
                                            ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
       SANIKERE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT,
       CHALLAKERE TALUK,
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.

2.     SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY
       S/O NINGANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT KAMMATHAMARIKUNTE VILLAGE,
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 25.08.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.23/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.38/2017
                               2




ON THE FILE      OF   THE   ADDL.   CIVIL   JUDGE   AND   JMFC,
CHALLAKERE.

     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 concurrent finding of fact recorded by both

the Courts that the plaintiff is not in possession, and

therefore, he is not entitled for perpetual injunction in

respect of the suit schedule property.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff claimed that he is a permanent

resident of Kammathmarikunte village, Challakere taluk

and he was carrying on agricultural activities for his

livelihood. Besides, he reared sheep, goat, cattle and

other domestic animals. He alleged that he and his family

members were residing with the sheep, goat, cow, ox etc.,

in a portion of the land bearing R.Sy.No.45/1B measuring

10 guntas of land out of one acre which belonged to Gram

Panchayat. He claimed that defendants were attempting

to interfere with his possession, and therefore, filed a suit

for perpetual injunction.

4. The defendants in the suit were placed ex

parte.

5. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and

marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. He also examined two witnesses

as P.Ws. 2 and 3.

6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Trial Court held that the plaintiff did not produce any

material to establish that he was in possession of the suit

property. It also held that the photographs produced by

the plaintiff did not evidence possession. Hence, dismissed

the suit.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment

and Decree, the plaintiff filed R.A. No.23/2018. The First

Appellate Court secured the records of Trial Court, heard

the counsel for the parties and framed points for

consideration and in terms of its impugned Judgment and

Decree, held that the photographs produced by the

plaintiff did not establish settled possession and therefore,

dismissed the appeal.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present

Regular Second Appeal is filed.

9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted

that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to

consider the photographs as well as the evidence of P.Ws.2

and 3 which demonstrated that the plaintiff was in

possession of suit property. He submitted that since the

defendants did not contest the suit, the Trial Court ought

to have considered the case of the plaintiff and must have

protected his possession. He also submitted that the Trial

Court and First Appellate Court mis-directed itself by mis-

reading the plaint and observing that the plaintiff did not

produce any order of grant from the Panchayat or

Government. He submitted that the case of the plaintiff is

that plaintiff was in unauthorised possession of the suit

property for a long period, and therefore, was in settled

possession.

10. A perusal of the document produced before the

Trial Court would indicate that other than the RTC of the

land in question which indicated that this was owned and

possessed by the defendants in the suit, the plaintiff

produced few photographs which indicated that the

plaintiff had some livestock in a pen that was put up in

some property. These photographs did not establish that

the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The

Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were justified in

dismissing the suit. I do not find any merit in this appeal

and hence this appeal is dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm