Karnataka High Court
Basavegowda Since Dead By Legal Heirs vs Smt. Bhagya on 1 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43431
RSA No. 2004 of 2023
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. 2004 OF 2023 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVEGOWDA,
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS
SMT. KAMALAMMA,
W/O LATE MARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2. SRI. SUNIL KUMAR,
S/O LATE K.M. JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO. 1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT HINAKAL VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU - 570 017.
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA P
Location: High
3. SRI. MANJAPPA,
Court of S/O BASAVEGOWDA,
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
4. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA,
S/O BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
5. SRI. H.B. JAGADISHA,
S/O BASAVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO. 3 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NO. 950/780, BASAVARAJA CIRCLE,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43431
RSA No. 2004 of 2023
HINAKAL, KASABA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU - 570 017.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R.D. PANCHAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. BHAGYA,
D/O LATE CHIKKAMADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 82, AMBEDKARNAGARA,
HINKAL, MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU - 570 017.
2. SMT. DODDATHAYAMMA,
W/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
4. SRI. DEEPAK PATEL,
S/O LATE K.M. JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
5. SMT. SHASHIREKHA,
D/O LATE K.M. JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 5 ARE
R/AT HINAKAL VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU - 570 017.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2023 PASSED IN
RA NO.63/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITINAL SENIOR
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43431
RSA No. 2004 of 2023
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
18.03.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.294/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful defendants, who have questioned the
concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein
plaintiff's suit seeking injunction simpliciter in
O.S.No.294/2007 is decreed, thereby restraining the
defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiff has filed the present suit contending that
she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property,
NC: 2023:KHC:43431
which is a revenue vacant site bearing assessment No.
2176/4 measuring 60 x 40. The plaintiff contended that
she purchased the suit site from the defendants under an
unregistered sale deed dated 20.03.2000 for valuable
consideration. Plaintiff claimed that she got her name
mutated to the site based on an unregistered sale deed
and that she is in exclusive and peaceful possession over
the suit site from the date of purchase. The present suit is
filed alleging that defendants, having sold the property for
a valuable sale consideration, are interfering with plaintiff's
peaceful possession.
4. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4, on receipt of
summons, tendered appearance, filed written statement
and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the
plaint. The defendants claimed that defendant No.1 is the
absolute owner of the agricultural land measuring 1 acre in
Sy.No.292/2. Defendants disputed that the suit property is
a vacant site. On the contrary, defendants claimed that it
is revenue property and the sale deed set up by the
NC: 2023:KHC:43431
plaintiff is a created document and therefore, the sale
deed is null and void and not binding on the defendants.
5. Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their
respective claim have let in oral and documentary
evidence. The plaintiff has examined both the witnesses
and a scribe to the unregistered sale deed, vide Ex.P.3.
6. The Trial Court, referring to the recitals in the
sale deed coupled with evidence of both the witnesses to
the sale deed and the scribe, who is examined as P.W.4,
held that plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating her
lawful possession over the suit site. Referring to the tax-
paid receipts, photographs coupled with admissions
elicited in cross-examination of D.W.1, who has admitted
that his father, i.e., defendant No.1, has sold agricultural
land by forming revenue sites, proceeded to decree the
suit.
7. Defendants, feeling aggrieved by the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before
NC: 2023:KHC:43431
the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, taking note of
the unregistered sale deed marked as Ex.P.3, was also of
the view that plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating her
lawful possession over the suit schedule property.
Referring to the boundaries indicated in the sale deed,
vide Ex.P.3 and the schedule annexed to the plaint, the
Appellate Court was of the view that the schedule
mentioned in the plaint tallies with the boundaries
indicated in the unregistered sale deed, vide Ex.P.3.
Having re-assessed the entire evidence on record, the
Appellate Court was not inclined to interfere with the
judgment rendered by the Trial Court. Consequently,
appeal is dismissed. These concurrent judgments are
under challenge.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
defendants. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts
below.
9. On examining the records, it is clearly evident
that defendant No.1, who is the owner of the agricultural
NC: 2023:KHC:43431
land bearing Sy.No.292/2 measuring 1 acre, has sold the
entire agricultural land by forming revenue sites. This has
been successfully elicited in the cross-examination of
D.W.1, who is defendant No.4. He admitted in
unequivocal terms that his father had sold the agricultural
land by forming sites. The plaintiff, to substantiate her
lawful possession, has placed reliance on Ex.P.3, which is
an unregistered sale deed. To corroborate the document,
she has examined both the witnesses and a scribe. She
also placed on record demand register extracts, tax-paid
receipts, photographs and CD's. Referring to this clinching
evidence, both the Courts have concurrently held that
plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating her lawful
possession and alleged interference by the defendants.
These concurrent findings are based on legal evidence let
in by the plaintiff. I do not find any serious infirmities in
the findings and conclusions recorded by both the Courts.
Defendants, having sold the entire agricultural land by
forming revenue sites, have not challenged the sale deed,
though the present suit for injunction is filed based on an
NC: 2023:KHC:43431
unregistered sale deed. Therefore, no substantial question
of law would arise for consideration. The regular second
appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands
dismissed.
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
