Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanaswamy vs Sri Naganaika on 2 March, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
RSA No. 2452 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2452 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE SANNANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT AMBALE VILALGE
KASABA HOBLI
YELANDUR TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRACHAR M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 1. SRI NAGANAIKA
Location: HIGH S/O P KENCHA NAIKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. SRI CHAMUNDA NAIKA
S/O LATE SANNANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. DRIVER MADA
S/O LATE SANNANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SL.NO.1 TO 3 ARE
-2-
RSA No. 2452 of 2018
R/AT AMBALE VILLAGE
YELANDUR TALUK - 571313
4. SRI BANGARU @ KOPA
S/O LATE SANNANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT SRIRAMPURA EXTENSION
T NARASIPURA TOWN - 570345
5. SMT CHANNAMMA
D/O LATE SANNANAIKA
W/O NAGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
6. SMT K LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE SANNANAIKA
W/O NAGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESPONDENTS No.5 AND 6 ARE
R/AT UMMATHUR VILLAGE
SANTHEMARANAHALLI HOBLI
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.09.2018
PASSED IN R.A.NO.75/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGAR AND ETC.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
RSA No. 2452 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment
and decree dated 17.09.2018 passed in R.A.No.75/2016
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM,
Chamarajanagar.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff
before the Trial Court is that he is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of
filing of the suit. The suit schedule property is a garden
land measuring 18 guntas in which the coconut trees are
grown. The defendants though having no any right, title or
interest over the suit schedule property, they are
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is further
contended that earlier, the defendants have preferred the
writ petition against the order dated 11.06.2022 passed by
RSA No. 2452 of 2018
the Land Tribunal before the High Court of Karnataka and
the said writ petition was dismissed and inspite of
dismissal of the writ petition, the defendants are
continuing to interfere with the possession and enjoyment
of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, the
suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction.
The defendants appeared before the Trial Court and filed
the written statement denying the averments made in the
plaint. It is contended in the written statement that they
have filed an appeal against the order of the writ petition
and the same is pending for consideration.
4. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case,
examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents
at Ex.P1 to P15. On the other hand, the defendants have
examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and got marked
the documents at Ex.D1 to D16. The Trial Court after
considering both the both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court,
RSA No. 2452 of 2018
an appeal was filed and the First Appellate Court on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record confirmed the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed
before this Court.
5. The counsel for the appellant vehemently
contend that both the Courts have committed an error in
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff hence, this Court has to
frame the substantial question of law that the Trial Court
is not justified in decreeing the suit and the First Appellate
Court is not justified in confirming the same. Hence, it
requires interference.
6. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
appellant and also on perusal of the material available on
record, it discloses that the plaintiff in order to prove his
case, relied upon the documents at Ex.P1 to P15 and the
defendants have also to prove their case relied upon the
documents at Ex.D1 to D16 and the Trial Court after
RSA No. 2452 of 2018
considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record comes to the conclusion that the documents
produced by the plaintiff clearly discloses that his name
was entered in the mutation register as per the order of
the Land Tribunal and therefore, RTCs are also standing in
his name. If the defendants are aggrieved by the order of
the Land Tribunal, they may challenge the same before
the proper forum and it is needless to say that as per
Ex.P15, the writ petition filed by the original defendant
challenging the order of the Land Tribunal is rejected and
therefore, without production of any appeal or SLP filed,
the mere contention of the defendants about challenging
the said order cannot be accepted and decreed the suit of
the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also on re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record in paragraph 16 held that the documents
placed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court are clearly
establishes his possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule property and it is also held that column No.9 and
12(2) standing in the name of the plaintiff and Ex.P13 -
RSA No. 2452 of 2018
letter of Tahsildar and Ex.P15, the order of High Court of
Karnataka passed in W.P.N.32094/2002 clearly and
categorically support the case of the plaintiff and comes to
the conclusion that the plaintiff has established his
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property
as on the date of the suit and formed an opinion that the
Trial Court has not committed any error in decreeing the
suit in favour of the plaintiff.
7. The reasoning given by the Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court is based on the documentary
evidence placed before them hence, the Trial Court rightly
comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out the
case and the First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation
of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record
particularly considering the documents at Ex.P1 t P10 as
well as the order of this Court in dismissing the writ
petition wherein the order of Land Tribunal was
questioned, rightly confirmed the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error committed
RSA No. 2452 of 2018
by both the Courts in decreeing the suit and in confirming
the judgment of the Trial Court hence, the very contention
of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the
orders of both the Courts are perverse cannot be
accepted. Thus, I do not find any grounds to admit the
appeal and to frame the substantial question of law
invoking Section 100 of CPC.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
