Sri C K Channaiah vs Kambaiah
2023 Latest Caselaw 6543 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                              NC: 2023:KHC:33657
                                                            RSA No. 1606 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                             BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1606 OF 2021 (INJ)

                   BETWEEN:

                         SRI C.K.CHANNAIAH
                         SINCE DEAD BY LRS

                   1.    SMT. CHANDRAMMA
                         W/O LATE VENKATAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                         AGRICULTURISTS

                   2.    SMT. SARADAMMA
                         W/O KATTAIAH
                         AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS
                         AGRICULTURISTS

Digitally signed   3.    LAKSHMI NARASHIMAIAH
by SHARANYA T            S/O LATE C K CHANNAIAH
Location: HIGH           AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                AGRICULTURISTS

                         ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS
                         R/O. C.A. KERE VILLAGE AND HOBLI
                         MADDUR TALUK,
                         MANDYA DISTRICT-571428.
                                                                   ...APPELLANTS
                             (BY SRI KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
                                   -2-
                                                   NC: 2023:KHC:33657
                                               RSA No. 1606 of 2021




AND:

1.   KAMBAIAH
     S/O LATE KARIYAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
     AGRICULTURIST
     R/O. C.A. KERE VILLAGE AND POST
     C.A. KERE HOBLI
     MADDUR TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571428.
                                                          ...RESPONDENT
     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2021
PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
SENIRO CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR.         DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 24.02.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.231/2004 ON THE FILE
OF THE C/C. OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR.

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

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel for appellants.

2. The respondent has filed the suit in OS

No.231/2004 contending that they are the absolute owner of

the suit schedule property and suit schedule property has been

granted to the plaintiff by the Tahasildar, Maddur as per order

dated 30.12.1973. Prior to grant also the plaintiff alone was in

possession of suit property and previously the suit property was

in survey No.1067. After grant, the said property was

NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021

measured and pakka phoded and new Sy.No.1448 has been

given. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule

property and he is growing paddy crop in the suit property. The

defendant starting interfering with the possession without any

right, title over the suit schedule property and continued his

illegal acts with the help of neighbors. Hence, filed suit for

permanent injunction.

3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant

has filed written statement denying the possession of the

plaintiff over the suit schedule property and contended that he

is in possession of suit schedule property as unauthorized

occupant for the last 100 years and the said application is still

pending for consideration.

4. The Trial Court has given an opportunity to both the

parties to lead evidence to substantiate their contention.

Having considered both oral and documentary evidence and

considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion

that the defendant being the neighbor trying to interfere with

the possession of the suit schedule property and though he

contend that he is possession of the suit schedule property not

NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021

produced any document and in paragraph No.39 considering

the contention of the parties, comes to the conclusion that the

defendant has not placed any material before the Court to

substantiate his contention and in paragraph No.40 also comes

to the conclusion that the plaintiff has produced the revenue

documents to show that he has been in possession of the

property from long time.

5. Having considered that the plaintiff is in possession

of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit,

the Trial Court considering the defense of the defendant also

that he is in possession of the property which has not been

substantiated, granted the relief of permanent injunction in

favour of the plaintiff.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree

an appeal is filed by the appellants' herein in RA No.14/2018.

The appellate Court has also by considering the grounds urged

in the appeal memo, formulated the point as whether the Trial

Court has committed an error in granting the relief of

permanent injunction and answered the points as negative in

coming to the conclusion that the appellants have not

NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021

substantiated their contention and on the other hand, the

plaintiff relied upon the document to show that he has been in

possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit.

Hence the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of

the First Appellate Court and also the Trial Court, the present

second appeal is filed before this Court. The counsel appearing

for the appellants would vehemently contend that both the

Courts below have not justified in decreeing the suit and only

relying upon the grant certificate, it is concocted for the

purpose of the suit.

8. The counsel would also vehemently contend that

both the Courts below have not justified in disbelieving the

endorsement issued by the Tahasildar with regard to the non

availability of records and with regard to issue of grant

certificate and also both the Courts below have committed an

error in relying upon the entries in the revenue records and

hence, it requires interference.

9. Having heard the counsel for appellants and also by

considering the reasoning given by the Trial Court and the very

NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021

argument of the appellants' counsel that questioning the

judgment and decree passed in the suit for permanent

injunction but, this argument is like the suit for declaration filed

by the respondent/plaintiff and the said contention cannot be

accepted. The Court has to look into only the material on

record, whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit

schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and also

whether there is any interference. Both the Courts have taken

note of the interference of the defendants that he claims that

he is in unauthorized occupation from last 100 years and also

he claims the very same property that he also made an

application for grant and the same is pending for consideration.

10. On the other hand the plaintiff has relied upon the

document of grant as well as other revenue documents and

having considered the same, prima facie found that the plaintiff

is in possession of the property and there was an interference

by the defendant while granting the relief of injunction. Hence,

I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in granting

the relief of injunction and the very arguments made by the

appellants' counsel is like in a declaratory suit and the suit is

not for the declaratory suit, only for the interference of the

NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021

possession at the instance of this defendant. Hence, by

considering the material on record, both the Courts have

passed the judgment. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit

the appeal and to frame any substantive question of law by

invoking Section 100 of CPC.

11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RHS