Karnataka High Court
Babu Rajendran vs Susheelamma on 29 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43102
RSA No. 372 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2016 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. BABU RAJENDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA,
2. SMT. RUKKAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT VIJAYARANGASWAMY
TEMPLE STREET OLD TOWN, BETHAMANGALA,
BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY G.P.A HOLDER,
SRI. S. NOVA,
Digitally
signed by S/O A. SAMUVEL,
CHAITHRA P
Location:
R/AT NEW EXTENSION, BETHAMANGALA,
High Court of BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.
Karnataka
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHESHADRI N.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUSHEELAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43102
RSA No. 372 of 2016
1(A). SMT. UMA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O SUSHEELAMMA,
1(B). SMT. B.C. JYOTHI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
D/O SUSHEELAMMA,
BOTH ARE R/AT: CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA,
8TH CROSS, NEAR SAPALAMMA TEMPLE,
JAYANAGAR, KOLAR - 563 101.
2. SMT. AMARA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
W/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA
RESIDING AT OLD TOWN,
BETHAMANGALA,
BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. JAWAHAR BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A AND B);
R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2015 PASSED IN
RA NO.86/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., KGF., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2012
PASSED IN OS NO.111/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., KGF.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43102
RSA No. 372 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful plaintiffs, who have questioned the
concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein
plaintiffs suit for injunction simpliciter filed in
O.S.No.111/2008 is dismissed by both the Courts.
2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiffs have filed the present suit by
contending that plaintiff No.2 has executed registered gift
deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 23.08.2006 and based
on registered gift deed, plaintiff No.1 claims to be in lawful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
The present suit is filed alleging that the defendants,
without any semblance of right and title, are interfering
with the plaintiffs peaceful possession.
NC: 2023:KHC:43102
4. Defendant No.1 on receipt of summons,
tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly
denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant
No.1, on the contrary, claimed that the suit schedule
property was originally owned by plaintiff No.1. Defendant
No.1 further claimed that plaintiff No.1 sold the suit
property under registered sale deed dated 29.11.1999.
Defendant No.1 claimed that pursuant to the sale, plaintiff
No.1 delivered possession and therefore, she specifically
contended that she has acquired a valid right and title and
that she is in lawful possession. Defendant No.1 therefore
contended that plaintiff No.2 had no title to gift the
property in favour of plaintiff No.1.
5. Plaintiffs and defendant to substantiate their
respective claim, have let in oral and documentary
evidence.
6. The Trial Court, having taken cognizance of the
rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants, more
NC: 2023:KHC:43102
particularly the title deeds, which are marked as Exs.D.1
and 2, held that plaintiff No.1 has sold the suit property in
favour of defendant No.1 and the same is evident from
Ex.D.2. Referring to Ex.D.1, the Trial Court found that the
father of plaintiff No.1 purchased 2 guntas of land out of a
total extent measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.528. The Trial
Court, referring to admissions elicited in cross-examination
of P.W.1, found that plaintiff No.1 has admitted that he
has sold 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.528, which originally
belonged to his father. Plaintiff No.1 further admitted that,
pursuant to sale, defendant No.1 is in possession of the
suit land. Referring to title documents, more particularly
the sale deed obtained by plaintiff No.1's father vide
Ex.D.1 and the subsequent sale deed executed by plaintiff
No.1 in favour of defendant No.1, the Trial Court answered
issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. The Trial Court further
held that plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that they are
in lawful possession. Consequently, suit is dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC:43102
7. Plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the
appellate Court. The Appellate Court, as a final fact-finding
authority, has independently assessed the pleadings and
oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties.
The Appellate Court, on re-assessing the evidence, found
that plaintiffs have not disputed the genuineness of
Ex.D.1. The Appellate Court held that if plaintiff No.1's
father has purchased only 2 guntas of land under Ex.D.1,
which is produced by defendant No.1 and if the same is
dealt and meddled by plaintiff No.1 by selling the same in
favour of defendant No.1 under registered sale deed, the
registered gift deed executed by plaintiff No.2 in favour of
plaintiff No.1 will not create any right. Taking cognizance
of rebuttal evidence let in by defendant No.1, the
Appellate Court was also of the view that plaintiffs have
failed to prove their lawful possession over the suit
schedule property. Accordingly, the Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal. These concurrent judgments are
under challenge.
NC: 2023:KHC:43102
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for defendant
No.1. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
9. The Appellate Court, at paragraph No.17 of the
judgment, while examining the title documents and the
schedules annexed to Exs.D.1 and 2, has also meticulously
taken cognizance of the schedule indicated in the written
statement. Ex.D.1 is the sale deed obtained by plaintiff
No.1's father. Plaintiff No.1 in turn has sold the suit
property in favour of defendant No.1 under Ex.D.2 for
valuable sale consideration. The schedule indicated in
Exs.D.1 and 2 and the schedule annexed in the written
statement, coupled with admissions elicited in cross-
examination of plaintiff No.1, who has admitted the sale
transaction between him and defendant No.1, I am of the
view that both the Courts were justified in answering issue
No.2 in the negative. If plaintiff No.1's father acquired only
2 guntas of land under Ex.D.1 and if the sale transaction
between plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 vide Ex.D.2 is
NC: 2023:KHC:43102
successfully substantiated by adducing clinching rebuttal
evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of
facts recorded by both the Courts. I do not find any
infirmities or perversities in the findings or conclusions
recorded by both the Courts on issue Nos.1 and 2.
Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for
consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of
merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
