Jayaramaiah vs Lalithamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 3317 Kant

                                                  -1-
                                                         NC: 2023:KHC:20714
                                                           RSA No. 1401 of 2014




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                                BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                           REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1401 OF 2014 (INJ)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    JAYARAMAIAH
                            S/O GANGADHARAIAH
                            AGED 41 YEARS

                      2.    RAJU
                            S/O GANGADHARAIAH
                            AGED 36 YEARS

                            BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
                            BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE
                            KASABA HOBLI
                            C.N HALLI TALUK
                            TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

                                                               ...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA       (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR
MURTHY RAJASHRI        SRI. SHRIHARI K, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             AND:


                            LALITHAMMA
                            W/O H.D. BHEMMANNA
                            AGED 81 YEARS
                            CAR STREET FIRST DIVISION
                            C.N. HALLI TOWN
                            TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI. M R VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
                                     -2-
                                           NC: 2023:KHC:20714
                                                RSA No. 1401 of 2014




     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.6.2013
PASSED IN R.A.No.81/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, ITINERATE COURT, C.N.HALLI, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
4.8.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.283/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed seeking setting aside the

judgment and decree dated 06.06.2013 passed in

R.A.No.81/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge,

Chikkanayakanahalli and the judgment and decree dated

04.08.2012 passed in O.S.No.283/2008 by the Civil Judge

and J.M.F.C., Chikkanayakanahalli.

2. The parties will be referred to by their rankings as

per the Trial Court.

3. The appellants were defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the

respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No.283/2008.

4. The respondent - plaintiff filed a suit against the

appellants - defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking relief of

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing

Sy.No.16/46, measuring 4 acres 38 guntas of

Manchanakatte village.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband

Sri.H.D.Bheemanna was a freedom fighter and the suit

schedule property has been granted to him vide order

No.LNDRUCSR.5/82-83 dated 30.03.1984 by the

Tahsildar, Chikkanayakanahalli and he was the absolute

owner and in possession of the same. After his death, the

plaintiff being his wife, inherited it and made

improvements investing huge amount and got mutated

her name in the revenue records, cultivating it and

enjoying it by paying the taxes regularly.

6. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiff,

disputed the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the

suit schedule property. It is the defendants' contention

that their father Sri.Gangadharaiah has acquired

possession to an extent of 4 acres from past 30 years and

after his death, the defendants are in possession. It is

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

stated that the defendants have filed application for grant

of the said property under Bagar Hukum and the

Committee has recommended for grant of the said land to

the defendants. It is stated that the defendants have also

filed a suit against the plaintiff in O.S.No.424/2008. It is

contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of

injunction as prayed.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court

has framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the invasion of the defendants over the suit schedule property, as alleged in the plaint?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

4. What order or Decree?"

8. The plaintiff's Power of Attorney Holder ie., her son

has been examined as PW1 and examined one witness as

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. Defendant Nos.1 and

2 were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and they examined one

witness as DW3 and got marked Exs.D1 to D8.

9. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both

sides, appreciating the evidence on record, has answered

issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of

the plaintiff.

10. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an

appeal in R.A.No.81/2012 before the Senior Civil Judge,

Chikkanayakanahalli (First Appellate Court).

11. The First Appellate Court after hearing the arguments

of both sides has formulated the following points for

consideration:

"1. Whether the appellant proves that the Trial Court not made proper evaluation of the documents on record and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is perverse, capricious and opposed to law and existing factual circumstance of this case, does it need interference by this Court?

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

2. What Order?"

12. The First Appellate Court after hearing the arguments

and re-appreciating the evidence on record, has answered

the points in the negative and dismissed the appeal.

13. Aggrieved by the judgments of the First Appellate

Court and the Trial Court, the defendants have filed this

second appeal.

14. Heard learned counsel for the appellants on

admission.

15. In the appeal memo, the following substantial

questions of law have been proposed:

"1. Whether the Courts below have justified in granting Permanent Injunction to the Plaintiff on the basis of the Grant Certificate without coming to a conclusion as to its genuiness especially when the same has been disputed by the Defendants raising cogent doubts?

2. Whether the Courts were justified in not considering Ex.D2 which proves the occupation of

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

Defendants over the suit schedule property beyond any reasonable doubt?

3. Whether the Courts below erred in giving excessive importance to the evidence of PW1 without considering the Defendants' evidence in the proper perspective?

4. Can a GPA holder of Plaintiff be examined in a suit for injunction?"

16. The plaintiff's husband who was a freedom fighter

has been granted the suit schedule property by the

Tahsildar, Chikkanayakanahalli. The grant certificate is at

Ex.P3. The property which is granted in favour of husband

of the plaintiff is the property bearing Sy.No.16/46,

measuring 4 acres 38 guntas. Even the boundaries have

been mentioned in Ex.P3. The said boundaries are also

the boundaries of the suit schedule property. The name of

the plaintiff's husband came to be mutated to the suit

schedule property by M.R.No.6/1986. M.R. extract is at

Ex.P9.

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

17. After the death of plaintiff's husband, name of the

plaintiff came to be mutated in the R.T.C of the suit

schedule property (Ex.P12). The name of the plaintiff's

husband has been shown as cultivator in Column No.12(2)

for the years 1993-94 till 1997-98. The name of the

plaintiff came to be mentioned in the cultivator's column

for the year 1998-99 to 2001-02. Ex.P14 is the R.T.C of

the suit schedule property for the years 2010-11, wherein

the name of the plaintiff is shown in Column Nos.9 and

12(2). All these documents reveal that the plaintiff is the

owner and in possession of the suit schedule property.

18. PWs.1 and 2 have also deposed that the plaintiff is in

possession of the suit schedule property and the

defendants are interfering with the enjoyment of the said

property by the plaintiff.

19. The defendants contended that they have been in

unauthorized occupation of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.16. It

is their further contention that they have filed an

application for grant of the said land and it is pending.

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

The defendants have not stated as to what is the Block

number in Sy.No.16, in which they are in possession and

for which they filed application seeking grant of the land.

It is their contention that they made the said application

seeking grant of land in the year 1998. The defendants

have not produced any document before this Court or the

First Appellate Court or the Trial Court, regarding what

happened to their application, seeking grant of land

measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.16.

20. The defendants claimed that they are in possession

of the suit schedule property on the basis of the mahazar

(Ex.D2) drawn by the Revenue Inspector. In that, it is

stated that defendant No.1 is in possession of 2 acres of

land. Ex.P16 is the R.T.C of Sy.No.16/4, measuring

2 acres and it is in the name of one Sri.Sidramaiah,

S/o Sri.Ganganna. DWs.1 and 2 have stated that the said

property ie., 16/4 is in the name of their brother.

21. In Ex.D3, name of defendant No.1 is mentioned at

Sl.No.4 in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.16, Block

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

No.4 to an extent of 2 acres 9 guntas. The evidence of

DWs.1 and 2 is to the effect that they are not in

possession of the suit schedule property, within the

boundaries mentioned in the plaint.

22. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court have rightly held that the plaintiff is

in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and the

defendants are interfering with her possession.

23. On considering the above aspects, no substantial

question of law arises for consideration in this appeal and

the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GH