Karnataka High Court
Sri G C Somashekaraiah vs Sri G B Ganganarayanappa on 7 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44988
RSA No. 268 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI G C SOMASHEKARAIAH
S/O G.A. CHANDRESHERAKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT. R. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
NELAMANGAL TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
NELAMANGALA-562121
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATA SHIVA REDDY P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI G B GANGANARAYANAPPA
Digitally S/O. BALA GANGAIAH,
signed by AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ALBHAGYA
Location:
2. G.R. NAGARAJ
HIGH
COURT OF S/O RAMAIAH,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT R.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
NELAMANGAL TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
NELAMANGALA-562121
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44988
RSA No. 268 of 2016
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULES 1 & 2
OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:
28.4.15 PASSED IN RA NO.85/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 24.4.14 PASSED IN OS
NO. 474/09 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC
NELAMANGALA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful
plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the concurrent judgments
rendered by both the Courts wherein the plaintiff's suit
seeking the declaration that he is the absolute owner and
in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties is dismissed by both the Courts.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:44988
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Plaintiff contends that the suit properties are their
joint family ancestral properties. Plaintiff is tracing title
through his grand father namely Annayyappa. It is the
case of the plaintiffs that propositus Annayappa had two
brothers namely Veerabasavaiah and Mahanthappa. The
plaintiff claims that his grand father Annayappa had two
sons namely G.A. Siddalingaiah and G.A.
Chandrashekaraiah and that he is the son of G.A.
Chandrashekaraiah. The plaintiff further contended that
the suit property bearing Kaneshumari Nos.71 and 72
were allotted to his father's share in the registered
partition deed dated 6.2.1968. The plaintiff pleaded that
his father purchased Kaneshumari No.76 from one
Gowramma through the registered sale deed. The plaintiff
claims that these three properties were allotted to
plaintiff's share in a subsequent partition deed dated
2.8.1981. The present suit is filed alleging that
NC: 2023:KHC:44988
defendants who are strangers and not related to the
plaintiff are interfering with his peaceful possession.
4. On receipt of summons, defendants contested
the proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments
made in the plaint.
5. The trial Court having examined the boundaries
indicated in the partition deed insofar as Khaneshumari
Nos.71 and 72 are concerned and the schedule indicated
in the plaint answered issue No.1 in the negative holding
that plaintiff has failed to substantiate his title over the
suit schedule properties. Having found that the
description annexed in the plaint is found to be totally
inconsistent with the description indicated in the partition
deed, the trial Court was of the view that plaintiff has
failed to substantiate his title insofar site bearing Nos.71
and 72. An adverse inference is also drawn by the trial
Court as plaintiff has not produced the subsequent
partition deed dated 2.8.1981 based on which plaintiff is
asserting title. The trial Court also found that the sale
NC: 2023:KHC:44988
deed insofar as Khaneshumari No.76 is also not produced
to substantiate that plaintiff's father purchased site No.76.
On these set of reasoning, the trial Court proceeded to
dismiss the suit.
6. The appellate Court as a final fact finding
authority has independently assessed the oral and
documentary evidence. The appellate Court having
independently assessed the entire material on record has
concurred with the reasons and findings recorded by the
trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
These concurrent findings are under challenge.
7. The plaintiff is asserting title based on a
partition deed dated 6.2.1968 which is produced and
marked at Ex.P13 which refers to the property bearing site
Nos.71 and 72. Both the Courts referring to Ex.P13 and
the boundaries indicated in the plaint have found that
plaintiff has failed to substantiate that he is the absolute
owner of the property bounded by the boundaries
indicated in the plaint. Though both the Courts have
NC: 2023:KHC:44988
taken cognizance of the partition deed, they have
concurrently held that plaintiff has failed to prove the
existence of the property as per the boundaries indicated
in the plaint. Both the Courts have found that the
boundaries indicated in the plaint and the one indicated in
the partition deed are totally different. Both the Courts
have also drawn an adverse inference as the plaintiff has
failed to place on record the subsequent partition deed
dated 2.8.1981 based on which the plaintiff is asserting
title.
8. If both the Courts on examining the evidence
let in by the plaintiff are not convinced with regard to the
plaintiff's title and have declined to grant the relief of
declaration, this Court under Section 100 of CPC cannot
reassess the entire evidence on record. Such a recourse is
not permissible. The plaintiff's case appears to be
doubtful and both the Courts have concurrently held that
plaintiff has failed to substantiate his title and possession
over the suit site bearing Nos.71 and 72 with the specific
NC: 2023:KHC:44988
boundaries as indicated in the plaint. No substantial
question of law arises for consideration.
9. The second appeal is devoid of merits and
accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ALB
