Karnataka High Court
Muniraju vs Ranganath on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31299
RSA No. 1485 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1485 OF 2015 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O DODDAKARIYAPPA
ANGARAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK
AND ALSO AT KATHRIGUPPE, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560085
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINAY D. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RANGANATH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Digitally signed S/O LATE CHIKKA KARIYAPPA
by R DEEPA
Location: HIGH 2. C NAGARAJU
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA
3. C NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKA KARIYAPPA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT ANGARAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562117
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31299
RSA No. 1485 of 2015
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2015 PASSED IN
R.A NO.10/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2012
PASSED IN O.S NO.25/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., RAMANAGARA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2015,
passed in R.A.No.10/2013 by the Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Ramanagara, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 27.11.2012 passed in O.S.No.25/2004 by the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant
is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants.
NC: 2024:KHC:31299
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal
are as under:
Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is
the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property.
It is the case of the plaintiff that, plaintiff's father had
acquired the said property under the partition deed
effected between him and his brothers. After the demise
of his father, the plaintiff had succeeded to the suit
schedule property. The plaintiff is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but the
defendant was trying to interfere with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit
for permanent injunction.
4. Defendant filed the written statement denying the
averments made in the plaint. It is contended that, they
NC: 2024:KHC:31299
are the owners and in possession of the suit schedule
property. Further, contended that the plaintiff is not in
possession of the suit schedule property and the suit filed
by the plaintiff is for bare injunction, hence it is not
maintainable without seeking relief of declaration of title.
Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.
5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the said
pleadings, framed the relevant issues.
6. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to
8. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and defendant
No.3 was examined himself as DW.2 and got marked 23
documents as Exs.D1 to 23. After recording the evidence,
hearing both the sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit of
the plaintiff vide judgment dated 27.11.2012.
7. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.25/2004, has preferred an appeal
in R.A.No.10/2013 on the file of learned Additional Senior
NC: 2024:KHC:31299
Civil Judge, Ramanagara. The First Appellate Court, after
hearing the parties, on re-assessment the oral and
documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide
judgment dated 13.07.2015.
8. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned
judgments and decree passed by the courts below, has
filed this regular second appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
the plaintiff has produced the documents to establish his
possession over the suit schedule property, but the Courts
below have over looked the documents produced by the
plaintiff. Hence, he submits that the impugned judgments
passed by the courts below are arbitrary and erroneous.
Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal.
11. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
NC: 2024:KHC:31299
12. Though it is the case of the plaintiff that, the
father of the plaintiff had acquired the suit property under
the partition deed. The plaintiff has not produced the
partition deed to establish that the suit schedule property
was fallen to the share of his father. Further, defendant
had denied the boundaries and extent to the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff except producing the Demand
Register extract and tax paid receipt, has not produced
any records to establish the measurement and boundaries
of the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiff has
also not produced any record to show that the plaintiff is
in possession of the suit schedule property. The trial
Court considering that there is a serious dispute in regard
to the measurement and the boundaries, has rightly
dismissed the suit. The first Appellate Court on
re-appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly
dismissed the appeal. In view of the above discussion, I do
not find any substantial question of law that arises for
consideration. Hence, I do not find any grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgments and decree.
NC: 2024:KHC:31299
13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. The judgments and decree passed by the
Courts below are hereby confirmed.
iii. No order as to the costs.
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2015,
does not survive for consideration and accordingly stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
SKS
