Karnataka High Court
Sri S A Veerabhadraiah vs Sri Pattada Sri Parvatharaj on 27 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
RSA No. 1000 of 2016
C/W RSA No. 1001 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1000 OF 2016 (DEC)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1001 OF 2016 (INJ)
IN RSA NO.1000/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S A VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O AIYYANNAPPA,
2. SRI. S.V.ARUNKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O S.A.VEERABHADRAIAH
3. SRI.S.V.NAVEENKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
Digitally signed S/O S.A.VEERABHADRAIAH
by ALBHAGYA
Location: THE APPELLANTS ARE
HIGH COURT
OF RESIDENTS OF HUNASAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
KARNATAKA AND POST, JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562127
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PATTADA SRI PARVATHARAJ
SHIVACHARYA SWAMIGALU,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
RSA No. 1000 of 2016
C/W RSA No. 1001 of 2016
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs
1A. DR.CHANNASIDDARAMA
PANDITHARADYA
SHIVACHARYA MAHASWAMIGALU,
SRI.SHAILA PEETHADA JAGADGURU-1008
SRI. SHAILAM POST,
KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDRA PRADESH-510101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R;
SRI.J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A);
SRI.K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT ON
IA NO.1/2023)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100(1) OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2016
PASSED IN R.A NO.15015/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VTH
ADDL. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALI, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 17.01.2015 PASSED IN
O.S NO.51/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., DEVANAHALLI.
IN RSA NO.1001/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S A VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O AIYYANNAPPA,
2. SRI. S.V.ARUNKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O S.A.VEERABHADRAIAH
3. SRI.S.V.NAVEENKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
RSA No. 1000 of 2016
C/W RSA No. 1001 of 2016
S/O S.A.VEERABHADRAIAH
THE APPELLANTS ARE
RESIDENTS OF HUNASAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
AND POST, JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562127
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PATTADA SRI PARVATHARAJ
SHIVACHARYA SWAMIGALU,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs
1A. DR.CHANNASIDDARAMA
PANDITHARADYA
SHIVACHARYA MAHASWAMIGALU,
SRI.SHAILA PEETHADA JAGADGURU-1008
SRI. SHAILAM POST,
KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDRA PRADESH-510101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R;
SRI.J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A);
SRI.K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT ON
IA NO.1/2023)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100(1) OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2016
PASSED IN R.A NO.15014/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL.
DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALI, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 17.1.2015 PASSED IN O.S
NO.1835/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., DEVANAHALLI.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
RSA No. 1000 of 2016
C/W RSA No. 1001 of 2016
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two captioned second appeals are filed by the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 questioning the concurrent
judgments rendered in O.S.No.1835/2006 and
O.S.No.51/2007 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs
seeking the relief of injunction simpliciter in
O.S.No.1835/2016 is dismissed by both the Courts and the
suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.51/2007 seeking the relief of
declaration and possession is decreed by both the Courts.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court in
O.S.No.1835/2006.
3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 have filed
the suit seeking injunction against the defendants by
contending that they are the absolute owners. The first
plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he has unauthorisedly
put up residential houses and residing with his family
members. At para (4) of the plaint, the first plaintiff has
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
traced his right and title under the first defendant by
contending that first defendant has relinquished rights in
the suit schedule property by receiving a sum of Rs.One
Lakh. The bare suit for injunction is filed by the plaintiffs
alleging that defendants without any semblance of right
and title are interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession.
4. After receipt of summons, defendant No.1
tendered appearance and filed written statement and
stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint.
The first defendant contended that first plaintiff has no
right and he had no semblance of title to sell the suit
schedule property in favour of his children i.e. plaintiffs 2
and 3. First defendant claimed that there are four
teachers quarters which were given to teachers who work
in the school run by the Jungama Mutt. The defendant
claims that first plaintiff is a Librarian and therefore, he
was provided with quarters. Out of total four existing
quarters, he was further provided additional quarter by the
first defendant. However, defendant alleged that plaintiff
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
No.1 also high handedly occupied the third quarters
without permission of defendant No.1. It is contended
that the suit schedule property belonged to Jungama Mutt
and the same is under the management of defendant
No.1. Therefore, contended that plaintiffs are not entitled
to seek injunction.
5. Defendant No.1 on receipt of summons in
O.S.No.1835/2006 has filed the suit seeking the relief of
declaration that the suit schedule property is owned by the
Mutt and consequently, sought for possession from
plaintiffs and his children.
6. The plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate
their respective claims have let in oral and documentary
evidence. The trial Court has clubbed both the suits. The
trial Court on examining the pleadings of the parties,
answered Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.51/2007 in the
affirmative and held that defendant No.1 who is the
plaintiff in O.S.No.51/2007 has succeeded in establishing
that suit schedule property is the property owned by the
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
Mutt. The trial Court while answering issue
No.3(OS.No.51/2007) in the affirmative held that
defendant No.1 has succeeded in proving that two sale
deeds dated 31.1.2001 executed by plaintiff No.1 in
O.S.No.1835/2006 are null and void and not binding on
defendant No.1/Mutt. While answering Issue No.5
(OS.No.51/2007) in the negative, the trial Court held that
plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 have failed to substantiate
that defendant No.1 has relinquished the rights over the
suit schedule property in favour of the first plaintiff by
receiving an amount of Rs.One lakh. On these set of
reasoning, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit filed
in O.S.No.1835/2006 and decreed the suit filed in
O.S.No.51/2007.
7. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 feeling
aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed in
O.S.No.1835/2006 and the decree passed in
O.S.No.51/2007 preferred two independent appeals in
R.A.No.15014/2017 and 15015/2015. The Appellate Court
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
has clubbed both the appeals and has independently
assessed the evidence on record. The appellate Court
while concurring with the findings of the trial Court was
also of the view that plaintiffs have failed to substantiate
that defendant No.1 relinquished the suit schedule
property to the first plaintiff by receiving a sum of Rs.One
lakh. The appellate Court was not inclined to look into the
photocopy of the relinquishment deed marked at Ex.P1 on
the ground that original deed is not produced. The
appellate Court has concurred with the reasons of the trial
Court in regard to admissibility of Ex.P1 and has also
declined to examine Ex.P1. The appellate Court referring
to the rebuttal evidence let in coupled with several
admissions elicited in the cross-examination of plaintiff
No.1 was also of the view that since plaintiff No.1 is
tracing his right and title under defendant No.1 and the
title of defendant No.1 not being in dispute proceeded to
dismiss both the appeals.
These concurrent findings are under challenge by
plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006.
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 and the learned counsel
appearing for defendant No.1 in O.S.No.1835/2006 and
plaintiff in O.S.No.51/2007. Perused the concurrent
findings of the Courts below.
9. Let me examine the averments made by the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006. Paragraphs No.2 to 4
would be relevant and therefore, I deem it fit to cull out
the same. Paragraphs No.2 to 4 of the plaint in
O.S.No.1835/2006 reads as under:
"2. The Plaintiffs submit that the originally the
property bearing Sy.No.93/1, 93/2, 93/4, now
katha Nos.108, 109, 110 and 111 was belongs Jodi
grama Village and other land situated at
Hunasamaranahalli, Suggatta,
(Nelakunte),Kodalgatte, Hosahalli, Bettaulsoor,
Chikkajala, Devanahalli, Vijayapura,
Chikkahobadevanahalli, Lingaderagelahalli and
Kempalinganapura, under the control of Srimatta
Saravadikari S.Thontadarya. After the abolition of
the Jodi Grama Village the said Properties was
controlled by the Village Panchayath Act.
3. The Plaintiffs submit that after the abolition of
the Jodi Grama the village Panchayath was came
into existence. Prior to the Jodi grama, the first
plaintiff was unauthorisedly put up the residential
houses and living along with his family members
including the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2. After the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
existence of the Village Panchayath the first plaintiff
has made a representation before the Village
Panchayath to regularize the unauthorized
occupation of the residential houses bearing
No.93/1, 93/2, 93/4, 108, 109, 110 and 111 in all
measuring 38' x 69' situated at Hunasamaranahalli
village, which is morefully described in the schedule
hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the
Schedule Property.
4. The Plaintiffs submit that to relinquish the
rights over the schedule property, the first plaintiff
has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh) only to the first defendant and the first
defendant has received the said amount from the
first plaintiff for having received the said amount
from the first plaintiff and in this regard the plaintiff
is herewith producing the copy of the cheque dated
14.08.1995 and also possession for having
relinquished his rights issued by the first defendant
is at DOCUMENT NO.I AND II. As per the
document No.II the defendant No.1 has received
Rs.90,000/- by way of cash on 21.3.1995 and
relinquished all his rights over the schedule
property, and cheque for Rs.10,000/-."
10. The plaintiff is cross examined by the learned
counsel appearing for defendant No.1 and several
admissions are elicited in the cross-examination of plaintiff
No.1 in O.S.No.1835/2006. It is useful for this Court to
cull out the relevant portion of the cross-examination of
P.W.1, which reads as under:
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
"£À£Àß vÁvÀ ²æà vÉÆAlzÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄoÀzÀ ¸ÀªÁð¢PÁjAiÀÄVzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß
vÁvÀ wÃjºÉÆÃzÀ ªÉÄÃ É 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ªÀÄoÁ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÁÝgÉ.
£À£Àß vÁvÀ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ¸ÀªÁð¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸ÀĪÀ zÁR É
£À£Àß CtÚA¢gÀ §½ EzÉ. £À£Àß vÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄoÀzÀ DZɪÁ¸À EzÀÝgÀÄ, £À£Àß
vÁvÁ¤UÀÆ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ DqÀ½vÀPÀÆÌ AiÀiÁªÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ E®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ
¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ «zÁå¨Áå¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è zÉÆqÀتÀÄä£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
EzÉÝ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸ÀĪÀ zÁR É E®è. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ
¦ÃoÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ «£ÀAw¹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ºÁ¸ÀÖ ï
£À°è GavÀªÁVzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ «zÁå¨Áå¸À ¥ÀÆgÉʹzÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.
13. ºÀÄt¸ÀªÀiÁgÀ£ÀºÀ½î K¼ÀÆ HgÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆÃrzÁgÀ UÁæªÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ
¸Àj. EzÀPÉÌ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀgÁVzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj."
11. If the pleadings which are culled out supra and
admissions elicited in cross-examination of plaintiff No.1
are looked into, then I am of the view that the concurrent
findings recorded by both the Courts in holding that
defendant No.1/Jungama Mutt is the owner of the land in
question and the suit in O.S.No.51/2007 being for
possession based on title is entitled to seek recovery of
possession does not suffer from any infirmities.
12. If plaintiffs are asserting and tracing their rights
through and have set up an unregistered relinquishment
deed, which is marked as Ex.P.1, plaintiff No.1 cannot be
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
permitted to turn around and dispute the title of defendant
No.1/Jungama Mutt. Both the Courts, referring to these
pleadings and also the admissions elicited in the cross-
examination of plaintiff No.1, have concurrently held that
defendant No.1 has succeeded in substantiating that suit
schedule property are owned by the Jungama Mutt and
defendant No.1, being the peetadikari, is managing the
same. The reasons and conclusions recorded by the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court while answering issue No.1,
do not suffer from any serious infirmities. The conclusions
and reasons to the effect that defendant No.1/Jungama
Mutt is the owner of the suit schedule property are based
on the admissions not only tendered in pleadings, more
particularly in the plaint, but also the admissions elicited in
cross-examination of P.W.1. Plaintiff No.1, who is tracing
his right under an unregistered relinquishment deed,
further meddled with the property by executing sale deeds
in favour of his sons, who are plaintiff Nos.2 and 3.
Therefore, both the Courts were justified in answering
issue No.3 in O.S.No.51/2007 in the affirmative and
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42846
against the plaintiff. Having held that the Jungama Mutt is
the absolute owner, both the Courts were justified in
directing plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 to hand over
vacant possession.
13. On meticulous examination of reasons assigned
by both the Courts, who have elaborately dealt with
pleadings, oral evidence and admissions which are culled
out in detail by the Trial Court in the course of recording
its judgment, I am of the view that no substantial question
of law would arise for consideration.
14. These regular second appeals are devoid of
merits and accordingly stand dismissed.
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ALB,HDK
