Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chikkanna vs Sri. Rajanna on 22 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
RSA No. 1143 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1143 OF 2016 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.CHIKKANNA
S/O CHITTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT SAMPIGE STREET
MADHUGIRI - 572 132
TUMKUR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RAJANNA
Digitally signed S/O SANJEEVAPPA
by ALBHAGYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/AT NEAR SHANKAR TALKIES
KARNATAKA MADHUGIRI - 572 132
TUMKUR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH H V, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2015 PASSED IN
R.A NO.5001/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDL. DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
RSA No. 1143 of 2016
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 21.12.2013 PASSED IN O.S NO.122/2005 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MADHUGIRI
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful plaintiff, who has questioned the concurrent
judgments, wherein plaintiff's suit seeking relief of
declaration and for consequential relief of permanent
injunction is dismissed by both the Courts.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred
as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under;
The plaintiff has filed the present suit contending
that he has acquired right and title over the suit schedule
property through registered sale deed executed by
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
erstwhile owner namely M.N.Gangadhara. The plaintiff has
contended that he has purchased suit schedule property
under registered sale deed dated 27.02.2004 and the
same is granted by TMC, Madhugiri in favour of
M.N.Gangadhara, who is vendor of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has contended that pursuant to the grant, his
vendor by name M.N.Gangadhara has acquired title in
respect of the granted land and out of the said property,
he has sold to an extent measuring 17 feet east - west
and 30 feet north - south, which is the subject matter of
the present suit. The plaintiff has contended that pursuant
to the registered sale deed executed by his vendor, he is
in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. The present suit is filed alleging that defendant,
without having any manner of right and title, attempted to
trespass into the suit schedule property and also tried to
interfere with plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment over the suit schedule property. On these set
of pleadings, the present suit is filed.
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
4. The defendant on receipt of summons tendered
appearance and filed written statement and seriously
disputed the plaintiff's title over the suit schedule
property. The defendant on the contrary claimed that one
Gundamma was granted 1/3/4 guntas of land by the
Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru in 1981-82, which
measures to an extent of 50 feet east-west and 30 feet
north-south. The defendant further contended that
plaintiff's vendor M.N.Gangadhara had constructed a
building, in a portion which was granted to Gundamma.
The defendant has further contended that towards western
portion of his property, plaintiff's vendor in collusion with
the Municipality Authorities got transferred the vacant
portion measuring 10 feet east-west and 30 feet north-
south in favour of Padma Shivakumar, who is sister-in-
law. The defendant claimed that towards western side of
the said property owned by Padma Shivakumar, defendant
is in unauthorized possession to an extent of 17 feet
east-west and 30 feet north-south for the last fifteen
years. The defendant, who had initially constructed a hut
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
in the said space, claimed that during 1998-99, he had
constructed a house in an area measuring 17 feet
east-west and 20 feet north-south covered by AC Sheet
and started to reside in the said house. The defendant
claimed that he is paying assessment taxes to the
concerned Municipality since 2002. The defendant
contended that the alleged grant in favor of plaintiff's
vendor is illegal. Questioning the locus of Municipality,
defendant contended that since the property is an
agricultural land bearing Sy. No.47, the defendant claimed
that Municipality had no power to grant a site in the land
bearing Sy. No.47. On these set of grounds, the defendant
prays for dismissal of the suit.
5. The plaintiff and defendant to substantiate
their respective claims have let in oral and documentary
evidence.
6. The Trial Court having examined the pleadings
of the parties and having assessed the oral and
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
documentary evidence let in by both the parties answered
issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Negative. The Trial Court held that
the plaintiff has failed to prove the description of the suit
property. While answering issue No.2 in the Negative, the
Trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his
title and possession over the suit schedule property. Issue
No.4 was also answered in the negative by holding that
the defendant has failed to prove that vendor of the
plaintiff has no exclusive right to sell the suit property in
favour of plaintiff. While answering issue No.6 in the
Negative, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff is not
entitled to seek relief of declaration of title and injunction.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal in
R.A.No.5001/2014. The Appellate Court has independently
re-assessed the entire evidence on record. The Appellate
Court, while taking cognizance of Ex.P.2 on which the
plaintiff is placing reliance, has held that plaintiff's vendor
had sought for grant of site measuring 17 feet x 32 feet
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
abutting to Municipal Assessment No.2742/3282.
Referring to the resolution based on which the plaintiff is
asserting title, the Appellate Court was also of the view
that the plaintiff's vendor was not granted the present suit
schedule property, but a vacant space abutting to
Municipal Katha No.2742/3282. The Appellate Court has
also found that resolution vide Ex.P.2 refers to an
agricultural land bearing Sy. No.47. The said resolution
also indicates that there are several unauthorized
occupants abutting to these lands. Therefore, the
Appellate Court on examining Ex.P.2, which is the
resolution passed by TMC, Madhugiri found that the
alleged grant was made in respect of the land bearing
Sy. No.47 in favour of the plaintiff's vendor.
8. While examining assessment extracts produced
by the plaintiff vide Ex.P.4, the Appellate Court held that
these assessment extracts, on which the plaintiff is placing
reliance, do not pertain to the property purchased by him
under the sale deed vide Ex.P.1. The Appellate Court was
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
also of the view that his vendor was granted a portion of
the land in Sy. No.47. There is absolutely no evidence to
substantiate acquisition of the suit schedule property by
the plaintiff under Ex.P.1, which is the sale deed executed
by erstwhile owner - Gangadhar. The Appellate Court,
while taking note of Ex.P.3, was also not inclined to accept
this document. The Appellate Court held that if the
plaintiff's vendor - Gangadhar was granted land in
Sy. No.47, the payment made to TMC pertaining to the
property bearing Municipal Khata No.2742/3282, does not
convey title in favour of the plaintiff's vendor. The Tax Paid
Receipt vide Ex.P.5 was also not accepted by the Appellate
Court. Referring to all these significant details, the
Appellate Court was also of the view that the plaintiff has
failed to establish his title over the suit schedule property
and therefore, the appeal is dismissed. These concurrent
findings are under challenge.
9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the defendant.
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
The learned counsel appearing for the defendant has
placed reliance on the subsequent orders passed by the
Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the direction issued by
this Court in W.P.No.44509/2012.
10. The subject matter of the suit is the property
bearing Municipal Assessment No.2742/3282. The short
question that needs consideration at the hands of this
Court is;
Whether plaintiff has succeeded in
establishing his title over the suit property?
11. The plaintiff is placing reliance on Ex.P.2 -
the resolution passed by TMC, wherein the plaintiff's
vendor was granted a portion of the land in Sy. No.47.
If plaintiff's vendor was granted a portion of an agricultural
land in Sy. No.47, this Court is of the view that both
Courts were justified in declining to grant relief of
declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff. Both Courts
were justified in holding that the property covered under
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
the resolution passed by the TMC, Madhugiri vide Ex.P.2
and the property covered under the sale deed vide Ex.P.1,
which is in favour of the plaintiff, do not tally. Both the
Courts on meticulous examination of the evidence let in by
the plaintiff have declined to accept the plaintiff's case.
12. Prima-facie, the resolution passed by the
TMC, Madhugiri vide Ex.P.2 is in respect of an agricultural
land. The said aspect is dealt by in the collateral
proceedings, more particularly, the order passed in
W.P.No.44509/2012 and pursuant to the order passed by
this Court, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner has
passed order dated 02.07.2021 in No.DUD/M.U.N(A)
SIBBANDI/C.R/93/2014-15, which is placed on record
along with memo.
13. This Court, without taking cognizance of the
collateral proceedings, has to examine as to whether
concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts while
answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative have misread
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
the entire evidence on record and whether reasons and
conclusions recorded by the Trial Court suffer from
perversity, which would warrant any interference at the
hands of this Court under Section 100 of CPC.,
14. On examining the resolution and conclusions
recorded by both the Courts, I do not find any infirmities
in the findings recorded by both the Courts. The plaintiff
has failed to establish his title over the suit schedule
property. Since the grant in favour of his vendor pertains
to the land bearing Sy. No.47, which is the subject matter
of the collateral proceedings, while his vendor has
conveyed the present suit schedule property by executing
the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex.P.1. The
records, which are placed on record, do not come to the
aid of the plaintiff and plaintiff is not in a position to
demonstrate that his vendor had a saleable title insofar as
present suit schedule property is concerned. The property
indicated in the grant order in favour of the plaintiff's
vendor and the subject matter of the property indicated in
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
the sale deed seems to be total different properties.
These significant details are meticulously examined by
both Courts, more particularly, the Appellate Court, which
has minutely considered the documents adduced by the
plaintiff.
15. Both the Courts have concurrently held that
the plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the suit
schedule property and the plaintiff cannot assert title by
placing reliance on Ex.P.1, which is the sale deed executed
by one M.N.Gangadhara in his favour. The findings and
conclusions recorded by both Courts do not suffer from
any serious infirmities. The plaintiff's case and his title
appears to be doubtful. Though the plaintiff has placed
reliance on the sale deed, which is produced and marked
at Ex.P.1, the same does not confer any right and title on
the plaintiff.
16. It is also noticed by this Court that the
findings recorded by the Trial Court on issue No.4 was
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:41975
questioned by the defendant by filing a cross appeal and
the same is allowed. The plaintiff has not chosen to
challenge the decree passed in the cross appeal.
No substantial question of law arises for
consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the
findings and conclusions recorded by both the Courts.
Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.
However, dismissal of the appeal would not come
in the way of plaintiff in questioning the order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner dated 02.07.2021 in
No.DUD/M.U.N(A)SIBBANDI/C.R/93/2014-15 pursuant to
the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.44509/2012.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
