Karnataka High Court
Sri.Haleshappa vs Sri.Mallappa on 7 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44986
RSA No. 405 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. 405 OF 2016 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.HALESHAPPA
SON OF NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MELANAYAKANAKATTE VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-5772123
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.P M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.MALLAPPA
SON OF THIPPAGAPPA,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
signed by RESIDING AT HIREMALALI VILLAGE,
ALBHAGYA
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
Location: DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-5772123
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI ONKARAPPA
SON OF HANUMANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HIREMALALI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-5772123
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44986
RSA No. 405 of 2016
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.9.2015 PASSED IN RA
NO.3/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC
CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.13 PASSED IN OS NO.
299/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE JMFC
CHANNAGIRI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR AMDISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful
defendant who has questioned the concurrent judgments
rendered by both the Courts wherein the plaintiffs' suit
seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of
possession is decreed by both the Courts.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking declaration
and possession against the defendants. The plaintiff is
asserting title by contending that the suit schedule
property is granted to the father of plaintiff No.1 and his
father being the grantee was put in possession by the
authorities. Plaintiff claimed that they are economically
weak and except the suit schedule property they do not
NC: 2023:KHC:44986
have any other property. Plaintiff claimed that defendant
without any semblance of right has tresspassed into the
suit schedule property and has dispossessed the plaintiff.
Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendant on receipt of summons tendered
appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied
the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant on
the contrary contended that he is cultivating three acres of
land for more than 30 years and therefore, denied that he
has encroached the property of the plaintiff in Survey
No.35/32 corresponding new Survey No.108 measuring 2
acres 20 guntas.
4. Plaintiffs and defendant to substantiate their
respective claim let in oral and documentary evidence.
The trial court having examined the grant order in favour
of the plaintiff's father, which is produced and marked as
Ex.P1 coupled with Ex.D2 which is the certified copy of the
order passed by the Tahsildar held that plaintiff has
succeeded in establishing that suit schedule property was
NC: 2023:KHC:44986
granted to his father. Referring to these significant
details, the trial court held that plaintiff has succeeded in
proving his title. While answering issue No.2 in the
affirmative, the trial Court has held that plaintiffs' have
succeeded in substantiating that defendant has illegally
tresspassed into the suit property and dispossessed the
plaintiffs. While answering Issue No.3 in the affirmative,
the trial Court held that plaintiffs are entitled to seek
recovery of possession.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree
of the trial Court, defendants preferred an appeal in
R.A.No.3/2014. The appellate Court having independently
assessed the entire evidence on record, more particularly,
the order passed by the Tahsildar, which is produced by
defendants and marked as Ex.D2 found that Tahsildar on
an enquiry held that suit property is granted to the father
of first plaintiff which is renumbered as 108. There is
further observation made by the Tahsildar that the grantee
is not found in possession of the property and defendant is
NC: 2023:KHC:44986
in possession of the suit property. Referring to all these
significant details, the appellate Court concurred with the
conclusions and reasonings recorded by the trial court.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
These concurrent findings are under challenge.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
perused the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts
below.
7. Plaintiff is asserting title based on the grant
certificate issued by the competent authority to his father
and the grant certificate is produced and marked as Ex.P1.
Both the Courts referring to Ex.D2 which is the order
passed by the Tahsildar have accepted the claim of the
plaintiffs that defendant has dispossessed him by
tresspassing over the suit schedule property. The
concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below is based
on grant certificate which is produced by the plaintiffs to
substantiate their title. Referring to Ex.D2, both the
Courts have held that the order passed by the Tahsildar
NC: 2023:KHC:44986
clearly indicates that defendant has dispossessed the
plaintiffs without any semblance of right. The concurrent
findings on title and the high handed action on the part of
the defendant in tresspassing and dispossessing plaintiffs
is based on legal evidence let in by the plaintiffs. No
substantial question of law arises for consideration.
8. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ALB
