Karnataka High Court
Kariaiah vs Mahesh on 2 February, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5486
RSA No. 1145 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. KARIAIAH
S/O LATE KARIAIAH
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
2. SANNA ERAIAH @ SANNIRAIAH
S/O LATE KARIAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
3. CHANDRAIAH
S/O LATE KARIAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
4. JAVARAIAH
S/O LATE ERAIAH (ERAIAH)
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka ALL ARE R/AT DEVIHALLI VILLAGE
HALEBEEDU HOBLI
BELUR TALUK-573 118.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHESH
D/O LATE PARSHWANATHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5486
RSA No. 1145 of 2019
DEVIHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA POST
HALEBEEDU HOBLI
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DIST. PIN-573 118.
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 AND ORDER
XLII RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 28.03.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.29/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BELUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.06.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.220/2013 ON THE FILE OF
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the defendants 1 to 4 aggrieved by
the Judgment and decree dated 01.06.2018 passed in
O.S.No.220/2013 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur
(trial Court) confirmed by the Judgment and order dated
28.03.2019 passed in R.A.No.29/2018 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge, Belur (first appellate Court).
2. The above suit in O.S.220/2013 is filed by the
plaintiff for relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the property measuring 2
NC: 2024:KHC:5486
acres in Sy.No.143/3 situated at Devihalli Village,
Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk (schedule property). It is
the case of the plaintiff that one Puttappa and his wife
Puttathayamma were having three sons by name
Parshwanathaiah, Ajith Kumar and Kubera and all of them
have passed away. Plaintiff is the son of Parshwanathaiah.
It is contended that upon the demise of Puttappa and
Puttathayamma there was a partition of the family
properties. That the suit schedule property was acquired
by the plaintiff and as such claiming ownership over the
schedule property.
3. Defendants in the written statement denied the
claim of the plaintiff being owner of the schedule property
also denied the partition of the properties as claimed.
Defendants contended that they are in possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property and the same is under
their cultivation for over 40 years. It is also contended
that they have made an application before the Assistant
NC: 2024:KHC:5486
Commissioner for grant of the schedule property which
was rejected. That an appeal had been filed in appeal
No.1213/2005 before the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal which was also dismissed and against the order
passed by the Tribunal, writ petitions were filed which
were also dismissed. That taking advantage of these
orders and since names of defendants not appearing in the
revenue records, plaintiff has filed the suit dispossessing
the defendant from suit schedule property. Hence, sought
for dismissal of the suit.
4. Based on the pleading, following issues were
framed by the trial Court:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the
alleged Interference by the defendant.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief
as sought for?
4. What order or decree?".
NC: 2024:KHC:5486
5. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited 9
documents marked as Ex.P-1 to P-9. Defendant No.1 has
examined himself as DW-1 but has not produced any
documents in support of their contentions.
6. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, answered
issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and consequently
decreed the suit with cost. Aggrieved by the same,
defendants preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.29/2018
before the first appellate Court. First appellate Court
framed the following points for its consideration:
"1.ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ/¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ°è PɼÀ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.06.2018 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ
PÁ£ÀƤ£À ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß
¸Á©üÃvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
2. PɼÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ wÃ¥ÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ rQæ ªÀeÁªÁUÀvÀPÌÀ zÝÉ Ã?
3. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?".
7. On reappreciation of the evidence, answered point
Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and consequently dismissed
the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, defendants are before
this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:5486
8. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the
grounds in the memorandum of appeal submitted that the
trial Court and First appellate Court erroneously came to
the conclusion regarding the possession of the plaintiff
over the schedule property merely based on the revenue
records without there being any deed of conveyance
establishing the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule
property. He submits that in the absence of plaintiff
establishing his title over the property the trial Court and
first Appellate Court ought not to have granted the relief of
permanent injunction.
9. Heard and perused the records.
10. Trial Court appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence more particularly the revenue
records produced by the plaintiff has come to the
conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully proved
ownership and possession of the subject property. It has
also taken note of the fact that defendant No.1 in his
evidence has admitted the revenue documents standing in
NC: 2024:KHC:5486
the name of the plaintiff. The trial Court has also taken
note of the fact though defendants claimed to be in
possession of the schedule property over 40 years they
have not produced any documentary evidence in that
regard. It has also taken into consideration of the fact
that an application filed by the defendants before the
Assistant Commissioner seeking grant of subject land has
resulted in its rejection which fact has also been admitted
by the defendant No.1 in the cross examination. It has
also taken into consideration that an appeal filed by the
defendants against the order of the Assistant
Commissioner before the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal has also been rejected and writ petitions filed by
the defendants against the said rejection has also been
dismissed. Trial Court has thus come to the conclusion
that though defendants claim to have been in possession
of the land cultivating the same under the grandfather of
the plaintiff namely Puttappa they have not been able to
produce any piece of evidence in justification of their
claim.
NC: 2024:KHC:5486
11. As regards interference, the trial Court has taken
into consideration the admission made by defendant No.1
about the complaint lodged by the plaintiff against the
defendants before the Halebeedu Police Station. It has
also taken into consideration the notice issued by the
plaintiff prior to filing of the suit. Thus, based on these
evidence, has held that defendants have attempted to
trespass the property of the plaintiff. Based on the
aforesaid reasoning and conclusion the trial Court has
decreed the suit.
12. The first appellate Court in the appeal has
reappreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has
confirmed the same.
13. On a query by this Court learned counsel for
appellants submit that there has been no grant of any
nature in favour of the appellants even till date by any of
the revenue authorities.
14. As noted above, though the defendants claim to
be in possession of the property no documents are
NC: 2024:KHC:5486
produced. Besides, application made by the defendants
before the revenue authorities seeking grant of subject
property has been declined and rejected which order has
attained finality. Plaintiff on the other hand has produced
records in the nature of RTC extracts, tax paid receipts,
patta and receipt book evidencing his possession over the
schedule property.
The trial Court and first appellate Court accepting the
plea and evidence of the plaintiff have granted the relief
negating the claim of the defendants. No substantial
question of law would arise for consideration in the matter.
Accordingly appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBN
