Sri Chinnimuthaiah vs Rangaswamy
2023 Latest Caselaw 867 Kant

                              1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

               R.S.A.NO.1588/2018 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI CHINNIMUTHAIAH,
S/O LATE HOLASALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT SATHEGALA VILLAGE,
KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440.
                                              ...APPELLANT

         (BY SRI SHANKARAMURTHY S.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

RANGASWAMY,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

1.     SMT. KANTHAMMA,
       W/O RANGASWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

2.     SRI NARAYANASWAMY,
       S/O LATE RANGASWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

3.     SRI SUNDHEER,
       S/O LATE RANGASWAMY,
       AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
                             2



4.   SRI PUTTARANGHA,
     S/O LATE THAMATE RANGAYYANNA MUTHA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

5.   SRI SHIVARAMU,
     S/O LATE THAMATE RANGAYYANNA MUTHA,
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

SRI MARISWAMY,
SINCE DEAD HIS LRS.

6.   SMT. SUVARNA @ SUVARNAMMA,
     W/O LATE MARISWAMY,
     AGED MAJOR.

7.   SACHIN,
     S/O LATE MARISWAMY,
     AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

8.   SINCHANA,
     D/O LATE MARISWAMY,
     AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS.

     ALL ARE R/AT SATHEGALA VILLAGE,
     KOLLEGALA TALUK,
     CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2018
PASSED IN R.A.NO.06/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JDUGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2008
PASSED IN OS.NO.4/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA.

    THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3



                        JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the

learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 27.01.2018, passed in R.A.No.6/2009, on the file

of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before

the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and

injunction is that the suit properties originally belonged to

Rangaiah and Muthaiah, the sons of Kundu Kenchaiah.

Rangaiah's sons Rangaiah and Holasalaiah constituted joint

family and were in joint possession of the suit properties. Kundu

Kenchaiah Rangaiah and his brother Muthaiah and wife

Malagarasi died intestate. Then Rangaiah and Holasalaiah

succeeded the suit properties. The plaintiff purchased the suit

properties from Holasalaiah and his sons and Mutha S/o

Rangaiah under a registered sale deed dated 20.07.1970 and

possession was delivered on the same day. Since then the

plaintiff is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule properties. Though the defendants' father Mutha had

filed a suit against the plaintiff in O.S.No.452/1970 for

declaration and possession of suit properties alleging that he is

the adopted son of Kundu Kenchaiah Muthaiah and his wife

Malagarasi. The said suit after contest came to be dismissed

and appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed and

decree became final and binding on Mutha and his sons i.e., the

defendants. On 24.04.1996, the defendants and their father

interfered with the possession of suit properties, to which the

plaintiff got issued a legal notice to them on 26.04.1996. After

receipt of notice, they refrained from interfering with the

plaintiff's possession. Again on 16.08.2003, the defendants

obstructed the cultivation of the plaintiff. On verification he

came to know that the defendants got the khatha transferred in

their names in respect of item No.1 property unlawfully. Again

on 23.08.2003, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the

defendants not to cause obstruction, for which they sent reply

notice dated 16.09.2003 by setting up false plea. Hence, suit is

filed.

4. In response to the suit summons, the defendants

appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement

denying the case of the plaintiff and contended that the alleged

vendors of the plaintiff had no right to sell the suit properties.

The suit properties are situated at Sathegala Village and it was

inam village. As such the Government is the owner of all the

properties including the suit properties. Nobody had right to sell

the inam land without permission of the Government. As such,

the alleged sale transaction is void and it is not binding on the

defendants. The suit properties belonged to Malagarasi W/o

Kunda Kenchaiah. Since they had no issues, the defendants'

father was looking after them and he had been in possession of

the suit properties as a tenant. On the basis of application, item

No.1 property is granted to their father. The grant certificate is

issued on 18.08.1982 as per LRF No.45/79-80. Since then their

father was in possession of the same till his death. Thereafter,

the defendants partitioned the suit properties into four equal

parts and accordingly they are in possession and the grant is not

challenged by anybody including the plaintiff. They are in

continuous possession of item No.2 property for more than 13

years to the knowledge of the plaintiff and as such they

perfected their title by way of adverse possession and this Court

has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the Provision of

Karnataka Inam Abolition Act and hence the suit is not

maintainable.

5. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings

framed the issues and the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1

and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 13. The defendant

No.2 and other two witnesses got examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3

and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 43. The Trial Court

after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on

record comes to the conclusion that the property which the

plaintiff was claiming belongs to Sathegala Village and the same

is a inam Village and the grant order is made in the Land

Tribunal in favour of the defendants' father and the defendants

have succeeded to the estate of their father and they are in

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the

suit was dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the

Trial Court, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the

Appellate Court in R.A.No.6/2009. The Appellate Court on

considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo and also

hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, formulated the

point whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing

the suit and whether the impugned judgment requires

interference. The Appellate Court on considering point Nos.1

and 2 and taking note of the documents which have been

produced by the plaintiff i.e., Exs.P.1 to 13 comes to the

conclusion that except producing the sale deed, which is marked

as Ex.P.1 and also the judgment and decree of the suit in

O.S.No.452/1970 and R.A.No.21/1976, no other documents are

produced before the Court and also comes to the conclusion that

the land was granted in favour of the defendants' father one

Mutha and the Land Tribunal passed the order in favour of Mutha

and the said order has remained unchallenged and comes to the

conclusion that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the order of

the Land Tribunal. The Appellate Court also discussed in

paragraph No.38 of the judgment that all the records discloses

that the property stands in the name of the defendants and

comes to the conclusion that the defendants' father Mutha had

occupied both 'A' and 'B' schedule property and after which the

defendants have continued in possession over the suit schedule

property. The plaintiff has failed to prove the possession and

also the title with regard to the suit schedule property and

dismissed the appeal. Hence, the second appeal is filed before

this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would

vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an

error in dismissing the suit without looking into the evidence on

record. The learned counsel would contend that the Trial Court

committed an error in not relying upon the document of Exs.P.1

to 13 and contended that the plaintiff had purchased the suit

property from Holasaliah and his sons and the sale deed was

registered in 1970 and possession is delivered on the same day

and the suit filed by the defendants' father Mutha was dismissed

and the same was confirmed and inspite of it, the Trial Court

committed an error in dismissing the suit and the Appellate

Court also committed an error in dismissing the appeal. Hence,

it requires interference of this Court and this Court has to admit

the appeal and frame the substantial question of law.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and on perusal of the plaint averments and also the contention

raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the defendants

have denied the title of the plaintiff by filing the written

statement and also relied upon the document of granting of land

in favour of their father and all the documents stand in the name

of the defendants. The very contention of the defendants in the

suit is that the vendor of the plaintiff was not having any title to

sell the property and the plaintiff also except producing the

document of sale deed at Ex.P.1 and the proceedings before the

Court in O.S.No.452/1970 and R.A.No.21/1976, no other

documents are produced before the Court. It is important to

note that the suit schedule property is situated in Sathegala

Village is not in dispute and the same is also an inam land and

occupancy right was granted in favour of the defendants' father

in the Land Tribunal and the same has not been challenged by

the plaintiff and regarding identity of the property also not in

dispute. When the land was granted by the Land Tribunal in

favour of the defendants' father and when the same was not

questioned, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion

that the civil Court cannot sit in an appeal against the grant and

the same has to be questioned before the appropriate forum by

the plaintiff and the same has not been done. Apart from that,

no documentary evidence is placed with regard to the title of the

vendor of the plaintiff. It has to be noted that when the plaintiff

seeks the relief of declaration and injunction, the plaintiff has to

substantiate the material on record that the property belongs to

the plaintiff with regard to his title and the same is not

substantiated by adducing any documents to show that the

plaintiff has got title over the suit schedule property and as

against both oral and documentary evidence, the defendants

have relied upon the documents of land granted in favour of the

father of the defendants i.e., in favour of Mutha. When such

material is available before the Court, the Trial Court rightly

comes to the conclusion that the grant made in favour of the

defendants' father has not been challenged and apart from that,

no other documents are produced except relying upon Ex.P.1

sale deed and the plaintiff who seeks the relief of declaration has

to stand on his own legs and not on the weakness of the

defendants. No substantial question of law arises as contended

by the learned counsel for the appellant. The very contention

urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Exs.P.1 to

13 are not considered, but both the Courts considered Ex.P.1

sale deed and no doubt, the plaintiff had purchased the property

vide sale deed dated 20.07.1970, but not proved the fact that

the vendor was having title in respect of the suit schedule

property. The property in question is a inam land and the land

was granted in favour of the defendants' father and hence there

is no substantial question of law to invoke Section 100 of CPC

and to admit the appeal.

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, the pending I.As. stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD