Karnataka High Court
Sri Agashappa vs Sri K N Srinivasaiah on 5 February, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1109 OF 2023 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1110 OF 2023 (INJ)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1111 OF 2023 (INJ)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1113 OF 2023 (INJ)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1114 OF 2023 (INJ)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1118 OF 2023 (INJ)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2023 (INJ)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1120 OF 2023 (INJ)
Digitally
signed by
SUMA B N IN RSA NO.1109/2023
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka BETWEEN:
SRI P. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
AND:
1. SRI K N SRINIVASAIAH
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
C/O MR. K.R. MAHESH
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
2. SRI K.R. MAHESH
S/O SRI.K.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023
PASSED IN RA No. 193/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT
BANGARPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED IN OS No.
20/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BANGARPET.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
IN RSA NO. 1110 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATARAMAPPA
S/O LATE HOLURU MUNISHWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI K N SRINIVASAIAH
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
C/O MR. K.R MAHESH
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
2. SRI K.R. MAHESH
S/O SRI. K.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023
PASSED IN RA NO.122/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMF, K.G.F. ITINERARY AT
BANGARPET; DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
ORDER AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2022 PASSED IN OS
NO.7/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BANGARPET.
IN RSA NO. 1111 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
R GOPALAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. MRS VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE R. GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. MR SRINIVASA G.,
S/O LATE R GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
3. MRS SAVITHA G.,
D/O LATE R GOPALAPPA
W/O MR MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
4. MR PRASAD G
S/O LATE R GOPALAPPA
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
5. MR BALAKRISHNA G.,
S/O LATE R. GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
6. MRS PUSHPAVATHI G
D/O LATE R GOPALAPPA
W/O MR SRINIVAS YADAV M R
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 162.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI K N SRINIVASAIAH
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
C/O MR K R MAHESH,
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 162.
2. SRI K R MAHESH
S/O SRI K S RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BANGARPET TALUK
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 162.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023
PASSED IN RA No. 192/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT
BANGARPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED IN OS No.
08/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BANGARPET.
IN RSA NO. 1113 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI P MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.PRAKASH K.A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K N SRINIVASAIAH
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
C/O MR. K.R. MAHESH
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
2. SRI. K.R. MAHESH
S/O SRI. K.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED 41 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563162
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023
WITH RESPECT TO COUNTER CLAIM PASSED IN RA No.
15/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED IN OS No.20/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BANGARPET.
IN RSA NO. 1114 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI AGASHAPPA
S/O LATE KURESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI K N SRINIVASAIAH
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
C/O MR. K.R. MAHESH
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
2. SRI. K.R. MAHESH
S/O SRI. K.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.06.2023
PASSED IN RA NO.123/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.G.F. ITINERARY AT
BANGARPET DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
ORDER AND DECREE DATED 1.07.2022 PASSED IN OS
NO.9/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BANGARPET.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
IN RSA NO. 1118 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATARAMAPPA
S/O LATE HOLURU MUNISHWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K N SRINIVASASIAH
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
C/O MR. K.R. MAHESH
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
2. SRI K.R. MAHESH
S/O SRI. K.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 SO
FAR AS THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN
RA.NO.12/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET.
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2022 IN SO FAR AS THE COUNTER
CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN OS.NO.7/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
IN RSA NO. 1119 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. AGASHAPPA
S/O LATE KURESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K N SRINIVASASIAH
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
C/O MR. K.R. MAHESH
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
2. SRI K.R. MAHESH
S/O SRI. K.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 SO
FAR AS THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN
RA.NO.14/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET.
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2022 IN SO FAR AS THE COUNTER
CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN OS.NO.9/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
IN RSA NO. 1120 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
R GOPALAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. MRS VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE R. GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
2. MR SRINIVASA G.,
S/O LATE R GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
3. MRS SAVITHA G.,
D/O LATE R GOPALAPPA
W/O MR MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
4. MR PRASAD G
S/O LATE R GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
5. MR BALAKRISHNA G.,
S/O LATE R. GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
6. MRS PUSHPAVATHI G
D/O LATE R GOPALAPPA
W/O MR SRINIVAS YADAV M R
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 162.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K N SRINIVASASIAH
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
C/O MR. K.R. MAHESH
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
2. SRI K.R. MAHESH
S/O SRI. K.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 SO
FAR AS THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN
RA.NO.13/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET.
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2022 IN SO FAR AS THE COUNTER
CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN OS.NO.8/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
RSA No. 1109 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023
RSA No. 1111 of 2023
RSA No. 1113 of 2023
RSA No. 1114 of 2023
RSA No. 1118 of 2023
RSA No. 1119 of 2023
RSA No. 1120 of 2023
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs
aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed in
O.S.Nos.20/2017, 7/2017, 08/2017, 9/2017, on the file of
the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangarpet (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) by which, while
dismissing the suits of the plaintiffs the counter claim of
the defendants is decreed directing the plaintiffs to vacate
the suit schedule properties within two months from the
date of judgment and decree and to put the defendant
No.1 in the possession of the suit schedule properties. It is
further directed that if plaintiffs fail to vacate the suit
schedule properties within the above period, the
defendants are at liberty to dispossess the plaintiffs from
the suit schedule properties in accordance with law.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
2. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs
preferred regular appeals in R.A.Nos.193/2022, 122/2022,
192/2022, 15/2023, 123/2022, 12/2023, 14/2023 and
13/2023 all on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, KGF itinerary at Bangarpet (hereinafter referred to
as the 'First Appellate Court' for short) which appeals were
dismissed confirming the judgments and decrees passed
by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the
appellants are before this Court.
3. These suits were filed by the plaintiffs for relief
of permanent injunction, claiming themselves to be the
descendants of the persons who were Khadim tenants in
occupation of respective portions of land in Sy.No.147 of
Karahali village, Bangarapet taluk described in the
schedule to the respective plaints, (hereinafter referred to
as subject lands) under the Jodidar of Karahalli village,
Bangarapet Taluk. It is contended that pursuant to the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
enactment of the Mysore (Personal And Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the subject lands vested with
the Government. However, the ancestors of the plaintiffs
and the other villagers had been in actual possession and
enjoyment of respective portions of subject land. It is
contended that the plaintiffs and their ancestors have been
in possession of the subject land for over five decades and
have been raising seasonal crops thereon. It is specifically
contended that after vesting of the subject land with the
Government, the Jodidar of the said village have lost their
right, title, possession and interest over the subject land.
That the plaintiffs have been regularly paying property
taxes to the Government and revenue authorities had
even effected mutation entries in the names of the
plaintiffs as per the M.R.No.25/1986-87. That by virtue of
said mutation entries plaintiffs have become owners of the
subject land. It is also contended that said mutation
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
entries have not been questioned by the defendants for
over 28 years. However, same came to be challenged by
the defendants by filing regular appeal in
R.A.No.145/2015-16 before the Assistant Commissioner.
That taking advantage of the said appeal defendants had
approached and caused interference in the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the subject land giving rise
to cause of action constraining the plaintiffs to file the
above suits.
4. The Defendants in their written statement
denied all the plaint averments and specifically contended
that the land in Sy.No.147 was the Shanbhogh Service
Inaam. That one Neelakantaiah the father of defendant
No.1 was the Shanbhog of said Karahalli village. The said
land was re-granted to the said to the Neelakantaiah as
per the orders of Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams
abolition vide order No.I:A:5C:255:58. As such, he
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
became owner in possession of the entire land in
Sy.No.147. That all the revenue records continued in his
name up to the year 1984-85. That the father of
defendant No.1 Neelakantaiah died on 2.5.1964 and the
defendant No.1 along with his brothers succeeded to the
estate of Neelakantaiah including entire land in Sy.No.147
measuring 8 acres 12 guntas.
5. It is further contended that one Butchchellappa
and his brother K.M.Suryanarayan Rao had filed a suit in
O.S.No.314/1963 originally against the said
Neelakantaiah, since died during the pendency, present
defendant No.1 and his brothers namely K.N Gopalaiah
and K.N. Manjunath were brought on record. In the said
suit fathers of plaintiffs herein were arrayed as Defendant
Nos.2 to 7. It is further contended that the said suit in
O.S.No.314/1963 was dismissed holding Neelakanataiah
as the owner in possession of subject land. Against the
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
said judgment and decree an appeal in R.A. No.53/1970
was filed before the District Judge. The said appeal was
also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.314/1963. Thus, by virtue of the said
judgment and decree, defendant No.1 and his brother had
become absolute owners in possession of the suit
property.
6. Further a counter claim was made by the
defendants in the suit contending that the subject land
was granted in favour of Neelakantaiah. That all revenue
records were standing in his name. Plaintiffs and other
persons were watch and ward of the subject land. That
they are not having any right, title or interest of the
subject land. Defendant Nos.2 to 7 in the said suit in
O.S.No.314/1963 and their legal representatives and
present plaintiffs in collusion with the revenue officials had
illegally obtained mutation entries in their names in the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
revenue records in respect of subject land. That the said
mutation entry is fraudulent and illegal and not binding on
the defendants. That the challenge to the mutation entry
in R.A.No.145/2015-16 by the defendant No.1 has been
allowed holding that the subject land has been granted in
favour of Neelakantaiah. Hence, sought for grant of
counter claim directing the plaintiffs to remove themselves
or evict them from the subject land. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the suit and grant of the Counter claims.
7. Based on the pleading trial court framed the
issues and recorded the evidence. Trial court on
appreciation of evidence held that the plaintiffs are not
having any right, title or interest over the subject land
and further found that Neelakantaiah to be the owner of
the subject property and accordingly granted the counter
claim made by the defendants by its judgment and
decree. Being aggrieved by the same plaintiffs filed the
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
above regular appeals. The First Appellate Court,
considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of
appeal framed points for its consideration. On re-
appreciation of evidence, the first appellate court
dismissed the appeals confirming the judgment decree
passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same
the plaintiffs are before this Court.
8. Since all these suits have been filed by the
plaintiffs in respect of a common property against the
common defendants for common reliefs, these matters are
taken up for analogous hearing and common disposal.
9. Shri Prakash K, learned counsel for the
appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the
memorandum of appeal submitted that;
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
a) the trial court and the first appellate court have
grossly erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs
despite material evidence having been brought on
record with regard to continuous possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the subject lands for
over seven decades.
b) the trial court and the first appellate court without
adverting to the reasons assigned in the judgment
passed in R.A.No.53/1970 misread the findings given
in the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1965,
passed in O.S.No.314/ 1963.
c) Elaborating these points he submits that findings
given in O.S.No.314/1963 to the effect that the re-
grant of the subject land were made in favour of
Neelakantaiah, have been reversed by the first
appellate court in its judgment in R.A.No.53/1970.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
Thus, he submits that there has been no re-grant of
land in favour of Neelakantaiah, as such the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court
confirmed by the first appellate court is patently,
illegal and unsustainable.
d) As regards granting of counter claim in favour of
defendants he submits that without defendants
proving their title over the subject lands and without
seeking relief of declaration, the trial court and the
First Appellate Court grossly erred in directing the
plaintiffs to handover the vacant possession of the
subject land to the defendants.
e) that the revenue records revealed the possession
of the plaintiffs over the subject land without any
obstruction from anyone whomsoever and the trial
court and the first appellate court failed to notice that
when the land vested with the State Government
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
free from all encumbrances, previous Inamdar lost
his right title and interest over the land unless
occupancy rights are re-granted in favour of the
earlier Inamdar.
f) The reasoning assigned by the trial court and the
first appellate court, that the plaintiffs and their
forefathers were in permissive possession of the
subject land is contrary to the material evidence
placed on record in that it is clear that the
forefathers of the plaintiffs have been in occupation
of the subject land as tenants under earlier Inamdar,
who have lost title over the subject land with the
advent of Inam Abolition Act. A suit based on long
and uninterrupted possession of the subject land for
more than 70 years was maintainable and the trial
court and first appellate court erred in dismissing the
same without adverting to the law laid down by the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
Apex Court in the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR
VS. BUCHI REDDY, (DEAD) BY LRS AND
OTHERS reported in (2008), SCC 594.
g) Thus, he submits substantial question of law would
arise for consideration of this court.
10. In response, Shri A Ravishankar, counsel for
the respondents/defendants;
a) Taking through the contents of paragraph 10 and
12 of the judgment passed in O.S.NO.314/1963 and
paragraph 8 of the judgment and order passed in
R.A. No.53/1970 submits that there is a categoric
finding with regard to the land having been granted
in favour of Shri Neelakantaiah. He submits the said
finding and conclusion have attained finality. It is
also his submission that the grandfathers/fathers of
the plaintiffs have been parties to the said suit in
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
O.S.No.314/1963 wherein they had admitted the
ownership of Neelakantaiah over the subject land.
b) in response to the portion of the judgment and
order in R.A.No.53/1970, relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant, he submits that
admittedly, the grant has been made under the
provisions of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act 1954, while the reference at
paragraph 9 of the judgment in R.A. 53/1970 was
with respect to proceedings under Karnataka Village
Offices Abolition Act, 1964 is only an alternate
opinion expressed by the First Appellate Court.
c) He submits that endorsement dated 08.03.1988
had been issued by the office of the Tahsildar which
was produced before the First Appellate Court
wherein it was clarified that since the occupancy
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
rights were granted under the provisions of Mysore
(Personal And Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act,
1954, there was no requirement of grant of land
under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1964.
d) It is his further submission that the plaintiffs in
their plaints have taken inconsistent and mutually
destructive stand, in that he submits that while the
plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the subject
land over seven decades as tenants under the
original Jodidar, they have also contended that they
have become absolute owners in respect of the
subject land pursuant to the mutation register entries
referred to in the plaints.
e) thus he submits that when the plaintiffs have
sought relief of injunction claiming to be the owners
of the land they cannot contend that they have been
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
in possession of the subject land as tenants under
the original Jodidar and continued to be so even after
vesting of the land.
f) He further submits that the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first
appellate court impugned in these appeals have
already been implemented and satisfaction of the
execution has been reported. He filed a memo along
with order sheet in the execution case in Ex.P.No.52
of 2022 and connected matters wherein the
Executing Court has noted the decree holder having
filed a memo stating delivery warrant has been
executed and has sought for dismissal of execution
petition as the decree having been satisfied.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
g) thus he submits that there is no substantial
question of law involved in the matter, warranting
consideration at the hands of this court.
11. Heard, perused the records.
12. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that subject
lands form part of a Jodi Village known as Karahalli
Village, Bangarapet Taluk. That the ancestors of the
plaintiffs were the tenants in occupation of their respective
portions of land forming part of the subject land. That the
ancestors of the plaintiffs were carrying on agriculture
activities. That after the enactment of the Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 and
subsequently Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1964
lands, including subject land vested with the State.
However, the ancestors, the plaintiffs and other villagers
continued to be in actual physical possession and
enjoyment of their respective portions forming part of land
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
in Sy.No.147 of Karahali village. Each of the plaintiffs have
claimed being in physical possession and enjoyment of
certain portions of land forming part of 8 acres 12 guntas
of land in Sy.No.147.
13. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the
original Jodidar of the said village lost right, title, interest
and possession in respect of the subject land upon the
same vesting with the State Government. It is also the
specific case of the plaintiffs that in view of the mutation
entries vide M.R.No.25/86-87, the plaintiffs have become
absolute owners of the subject land.
14. It is the case of the defendants on other hand
that Neelakantaiah was the absolute owner of the subject
land by virtue of grant made by the Special Deputy
Commissioner for Inams Abolition vide order
No.I:A:5C:255:58. That his rights over the subject land
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
was confirmed in the judgment and decree that was
passed in a suit in O.S. No.314/1963 which was confirmed
in R.A.NO.53/1970. That the claim of the plaintiffs having
become owners of the subject land by virtue of mutation
entries of the year 1986-87 is baseless as the said entry
was collusive and illegal.
15. At the outset it is necessary to note the
contents of Ex.P1 which is a mutation register extract
bearing MR No. 25/86-87 based on which the plaintiffs
claim to be in possession and also having become owners
of the subject land. A perusal of Ex.P1 reveals that the
applications made by certain persons namely, 1) Venkata
Ramanna son of Holuru Muniyappa, 2) ChilaKrishna son of
Konappa, 3) Ramappa son of Chilakappa, 4) Nanamma
wife of Koreshappa, 5) Changappa @ Venkataramappa
son of Changappa, 6) Gopal son of Ramaiah, 7) Adeppa
son of Muneppa and Pallava son of Adeppa, seeking
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
mutation of their names claiming that they have been in
possession of portions of land forming part of land in
Sy.No.147 for over 35 years and that they have been
paying property tax to the Government. Upon which the
revenue authorities have noted that the Khata in respect
of the said land was standing in the name of
Neelakantaiah, who is deceased and that his legal hairs
have not been residing in village. Thus, based on this
reasoning the names of aforesaid applicants have been
mutated in respect of the aforesaid land.
16. Thus, as seen above there is no reference in the
mutation register extract /Ex.P1 to any order that has
been passed by any competent authority granting any
rights in favour of the persons named therein, prompting
mutation of their names in the revenue record.
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
17. Further what emanates from the contents of
Ex.P1 is that name of Neelakantaiah has continued in the
revenue records as owner in possession of the subject land
till the said mutation entry vide M.R.No.25/86-87 was
made in the name of the applicants named therein and
since his legal heirs were not residing in the village and
the applicants being in possession of the land for 35 years,
their names have been mutated. Based on this document,
the plaintiffs claim their right, title and possession over the
subject land. There has been no document of any nature
whatsoever produced by the plaintiffs with regard to their
possession and entitlement over the subject land prior to
the date of said Ex.P1. As rightly take a note of by the trial
court and the first appellate court such stray entries in the
revenue records confers no right, title and interest over
the subject land.
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
18. Defendants on the other hand have relied upon
the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.314/1963,
confirmed in judgment and order passed in
R.A.No.53/1973 and the revenue records. It is seen that at
paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment there is
categoric finding to the effect that Neelakantaiah who was
the defendant No.1 in the said suit was conferred with the
occupancy rights under the provisions of Inam Abolition
Act. It is also the finding that said Neelakantaiah was the
Shanubogh of the village from the year 1935. He
continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the
subject land till his death in the year 1963. The fathers of
the plaintiffs in the present suit are the defendants 2 to 7
in the said suit. There is also a finding therein that the said
defendants 2 to 7 were the tenants under the said
Neelakantaiah. Thus, there is a categoric finding in the
said suit to the effect that the occupancy rights were
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
granted in favour of Neelakantaiah under the provisions of
the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition
Act, 1954 and also that the said Neelakantaiah was the
absolute owner in exclusive possession of the subject land.
19. In appeal that was filed against the said
judgment and decree in R.A.No.53/1973, the first
appellate court in its judgment referring to Ex.D13 the
order of the Deputy Commissioner produced in the said
suit, at paragraph 8 has observed that "there is no
dispute in regard to land having been registered in the
name of first defendant as the holder of Shanbhogi office
of Jodi karahalli village". However the First Appellate
Court has further proceeded to analyse the case of the
plaintiffs therein regarding their claim of the land being
joint family property in the light of provision of Karnataka
Village Offices Abolition Act 1961 and opined that even
applying the said provision the land did not remain the
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
joint family property and that by operation of law suit land
ceased to be the joint family property of the plaintiffs and
first defendant in the said suit.
20. Referring to the above observation of the first
appellate court in RA No 53/1973 the learned counsel for
the appellants vehemently submitted that the finding
arrived at by the trial court in O.S. No.314/1963 with
regard to occupancy rights having been conferred in
favour of Neelakantaiah under the Mysore, (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act has been negatived by
the first appellate court. As rightly contended by the
learned counsel for respondents, on a holistic reading of
the said observations of the first appellate court as noted
above were in the alternate to the submissions of the
plaintiffs therein, of land remaining joint family property.
Thus, the said observation made by the first appellate
court, referring to the provisions of the Karnataka Village
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
Offices Abolition Act is of no avail to the plaintiffs in the
present case.
21. It is also necessary to note at this juncture that
the plaintiffs though claim themselves to be in possession
and enjoyment of the subject land over seven decades
have not produced any evidence in that regard. On the
other hand, plaintiffs claim themselves to have perfected
their right, title and interest in terms of the mutation
entries vide M.R. No.25/86-87. The said mutation entry,
not based on any lawful order, cannot have the effect of
conferring any right, title and interest in the plaintiffs.
Needless to reiterate that the forefathers of the plaintiffs
were parties to the suit in O.S.No. 314/1963, which was
confirmed by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.
53/1970, upholding the right, title and interest of
Neelakantaiah.
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
22. As regards the contention urged by the counsel
for the appellants that in a suit for injunction filed by the
plaintiffs the defendants cannot maintain relief of counter
claim for possession, necessary at this juncture, to refer to
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
GURBACHAN SINGH VS. BHAG SINGH reported in AIR
1996 SC 1087, wherein it has been held that in a suit for
injunction, a counter claim for possession also could be
entertained in view of operation of Order 8 Rule 6(A )(1)
of CPC. In the case of JAG MOHAN CHAWLA AND
ANOTHER vs. DERA RADHA SWAMI SATSANG AND
OTHERS reported in AIR 1996 SC 2222 it has been held
that defendant can claim any right by way of counter claim
in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him
even though it is independent of the cause of action
averred by the plaintiff and have the same cause of action
adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:4909
separate suit. In view of the aforesaid settled position of
law, making a counter claim in a suit for injunction and
grant of the same cannot be found to be erroneous as
sought to be contended by the appellants.
23. As seen from the order sheet maintained in
Execution proceeding in Ex.No.51/2022 along with spot
mahazar and photographs produced by the learned
counsel for the appellants decrees passed by the trial court
and confirmed by the first appellate court impugned in
these appeals have already been implemented and
satisfaction of the execution has been reported and the
execution proceedings have been closed as on 17.7.2023.
24. For the reasons stated above no substantial
question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly,
appeals stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RU
