Karnataka High Court
Sri. Venkataswamy @ Venkataswamy Reddy vs Sri. B. Venkataswamy Reddy on 1 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43532
RSA No. 1016 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1016 OF 2016 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATASWAMY @ VENKATASWAMY REDDY
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT BYNAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-572102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMAIAH GOWDA L M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. B. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
S/O. LATE BYRAREDDY,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
signed by R/AT KAGATHI VILLAGE,
CHAITHRA A
KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
Location:
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-572102.
HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2016 PASSED IN
RA.NO.26/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., CHINTAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:
15.12.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.115/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHINTAMANI.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43532
RSA No. 1016 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful
defendant assailing the concurrent judgments of the
Courts below wherein plaintiff's suit for injunction
simpliciter in O.S.No.115/2007 is decreed and defendant is
restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred
to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiff has instituted a bare suit for injunction
in respect of property bearing Sy.No.88. The plaintiff is
asserting title over the suit schedule property. The
plaintiff contends that the competent authority has
granted suit property to his father in LND No.(M) 29-
11/78-79 and has issued grant certificate on 30.11.1979.
NC: 2023:KHC:43532
Therefore, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that his
father was in exclusive possession as absolute owner since
1979 till his demise. The plaintiff has further pleaded that
his father died on 27.09.2000 and he being class-I heir
has inherited to the property left behind by his father. The
plaintiff contends that his father was paying tax to the
Government and post grant, the authority have surveyed
and a rough sketch is prepared in respect of property. The
present suit is filed alleging that defendant without any
semblance of right and title is highhandedly interfering
with plaintiff's peaceful possession.
4. The defendant, on receipt of summons,
tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly
denied the entire claim made by the plaintiff. The
defendant on the contrary contended that the grant
certificate on which plaintiff is relying is a fraudulent and
created. The defendant further contended that he along
with his brother namely B.C.Krishna Reddy are joint family
NC: 2023:KHC:43532
members and Government has granted the suit land
namely plot Nos.10 and 11 to his brother. The defendant
claimed that the land grant committee after due enquiry
has granted the suit property and possession is delivered
to his brother and therefore, defendant contended that he
along with his brother are in possession of 1 acre and
another strip of 1 acre 23 guntas in Sy.No.88.
5. The plaintiff and defendant to substantiate their
respective claim have let in oral and documentary
evidence.
6. The trial Court having taken cognizance of the
original grant certificate vide Ex.P-1 held that plaintiff has
succeeded in substantiating that suit property was granted
to plaintiff's father. While examining the rebuttal
evidence, trial Court was not inclined to take cognizance of
the said document. While examining the rebuttal
evidence, trial Court was of the view that the land granted
NC: 2023:KHC:43532
to defendant does not indicate specific boundaries. The
trial Court also held that these documents on which
defendant is placing reliance are Xerox copies. Taking
note of Ex.P-1 which is the original grant certificate, trial
Court held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving his
lawful possession and interference. Consequently, suit is
decreed.
7. The defendant feeling aggrieved by the
judgment and decree of the trial Court preferred appeal
before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has
independently assessed the entire material on record. The
appellate Court referring to grant certificate found that
plaintiff's father was granted 2 acres 20 guntas in
Sy.No.88 and also found that the grant certificate
discloses boundaries. While taking note of the revenue
records vide Exs.P-4 and P-6, appellate Court was of the
view that the suit property is admittedly standing in the
name of plaintiff's father. While taking note of Ex.P-9,
NC: 2023:KHC:43532
appellate Court found that based on grant certificate
issued to plaintiff's father, mutation was effected under
Ex.P-9 which is dated 22.07.2007. The appellate Court
while taking cognizance of Ex.P-10 which is the revenue
sketch found that plaintiff's father is in exclusive
possession of the suit property. The appellate Court held
that the revenue sketch also mentions boundaries which is
prepared by a competent surveyor and signed by the
Tahsildar. The appellate Court referring to these
documents coupled with oral evidence of PWs.2 and 3,
held that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his lawful
possession as on the date of filing of the suit.
Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
8. Though learned counsel appearing for the
defendant has vehemently argued and contended that
grant committee has granted land, however, while
examining the records, it is not seriously disputed that the
grant made in favour of plaintiff's father is much prior in
NC: 2023:KHC:43532
time and the alleged grant set up by defendant in favour
of his brother is subsequent grant. If these factual matrix
is accepted, then this Court would find that if there is
already a grant in favour of plaintiff's father way back in
1979, the authority could not have granted subsequently
without recalling the grant in favour of plaintiff's father.
9. Be that as it may, the clinching evidence let in
by the plaintiff coupled with oral evidence of two witnesses
clearly substantiates the plaintiff's claim in regard to
possession over suit schedule property as on the date of
filing of the suit and interference by the defendant. What
is interesting to note is that defendant has no semblance
of right. His claim is that suit property is granted to his
brother and therefore, is disputing plaintiff's possession
over the suit property. If defendant without having any
semblance of right and title is disputing plaintiff's
possession, this is the best piece of evidence indicating
interference by the defendant. If these significant details
are looked into, both the Courts were justified in granting
NC: 2023:KHC:43532
injunction. The findings recorded by both the Courts on
issue No.1 is based on cogent and clinching evidence let in
by the plaintiff.
10. No substantial question of law arises for
consideration. The second appeal is devoid of merits and
accordingly, stands dismissed.
The pending interlocutory application, if any, does
not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
