Karnataka High Court
Sri A Papanna vs Sri Chennappa on 29 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8464
RSA No. 388 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2014 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI A PAPANNA
S/O LATE ANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT HINKAL VILLAGE,
MYSORE TALUK, KASABA HOBLI,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 017
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANANDA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI CHENNAPPA
S/O LATE HOTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by R DEEPA 2. SMT. SUSHEELA
Location: HIGH W/O CHENNAPPA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
3. SMT. MANJULA
D/O CHENNAPPA,
W/O CHIKKAMALLU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT HINKAL VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK - 570 017
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. MANOJ ARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S. SHIVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8464
RSA No. 388 of 2014
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 21.11.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.157/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 13.6.2012 PASSED IN
OS.NO.939/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. FIRST CIVIL JUDGE
& JMFC., MYSORE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed by the appellant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2013,
passed in R.A.No.157/2012 by the IV Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Mysore, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 13.06.2012 passed in O.S.No.939/2007 by the
Prl. First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore.
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:8464
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal
are as under:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction
against the defendants. It is the case of plaintiff that
defendant No.1 entered into an agreement with the
plaintiff in respect of suit property agreeing to sell the suit
schedule property for consideration amount of Rs.30,000/-
and the plaintiff paid the entire consideration amount to
defendant No.1 and it was agreed that the agreement
shall be in force till necessary permission is obtained by
defendant No.1 from the Government of Karnataka under
ULC Act and obtained the katha in the name of defendant
No.1 from the name of his grandfather. It is contended
that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule
property and the defendants have lost their possession
over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff requested the
defendants to execute a registered sale deed by obtaining
necessary permission from the competent Authority. The
defendants went on postponing the matter on one or other
pretext. On 11.08.2007, the defendants tried to interfere
NC: 2024:KHC:8464
with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property. The plaintiff lodged a complaint before
the Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysuru, but the police have
not taken any action against the defendants. Hence, cause
of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent
injunction.
The defendants filed written statement denying the
execution of an agreement of sale and also denied that the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is
contended that the defendants are the owners of the suit
schedule property and they are in possession of the suit
schedule property. It is contended that the suit schedule
property was acquired by Mysore Urban Development
Authorities way back in the year 2002-03. It is contended
that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts with
malafide intention. It is contended that the plaintiff being
an influential person taking undue advantage of illiteracy
of defendant Nos.1 to 3 has fabricated the alleged
agreement of sale. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for
NC: 2024:KHC:8464
the relief as claimed in the plaint and prayed to dismiss
the suit.
4. The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said
pleadings, framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has
been in possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference by the defendants?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief as sought for?
4) What decree or order?
5. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his case
examined himself as PW.1 and examined two witnesses as
PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked 17 documents as Exs.P1
to P17. In rebuttal, defendant No.3 was examined as DW-
1 and examined one witness as DW-2 and got marked 19
documents as Exs.D1 to D19 and closed their side. The
trial Court on the assessment of oral and documentary
evidence of the parties, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the
NC: 2024:KHC:8464
negative and issue No.4 as per final order. The suit of the
plaintiff was dismissed with cost.
6. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed in the above said suit, filed an appeal in
R.A.No.157/2012 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Mysore. The First Appellate Court, after hearing
the parties, has framed the following points for
consideration:
1) Whether the approach of the trial Court in
dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff is
proper?
2) Whether the interference by this Court is
required?
3) What order?
7. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing the oral
and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the
affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and point No.3 as
per final order and consequently, dismissed the appeal
filed by the plaintiff, confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the
NC: 2024:KHC:8464
judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, has
filed this second appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that
defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property
and he has entered into an agreement of sale with the
plaintiff and the plaintiff paid part consideration amount
and in part performance of contract, defendant No.1
delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in
favour of the plaintiff. By virtue of agreement, the plaintiff
is in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, in
order to prove the plaintiff's possession over the suit
schedule property, the plaintiff has also examined two
witnesses. He submits that the courts below have not
properly appreciated the material placed on record. Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal
10. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff.
NC: 2024:KHC:8464
11. The plaintiff in order to prove his case,
examined himself as PW.1 and examination-in-chief is the
replica of plaint. In support of his contention, he has
produced the documents i.e., Exs.P1 and P2 are the RTC,
Exs.P3 and 6 are the complaints, Exs.P4 and P7 are the
N.C.Rs, Exs.P8 and P9 are representations, Exs.P10 to 15
are the photographs, Ex.P16 is the unregistered sale
agreement and Ex.P17 is the endorsement. Further, he
examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3, who have
deposed that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit
schedule property.
12. In rebuttal, defendant No.3 was examined as
DW-1 and examined one witness as DW-2. In support of
their contentions, they have produced the documents i.e.,
Exs.D1 and D5 are the mutation register extract, Exs.D2,
D3, D6 to D12 are the RTCs, Ex.D4 is the endorsement,
Ex.D13 is the authorization certificate, Ex.D14 is the
award notice, Ex.D15 is the notice under Section 11,
Ex.D16 is the general award, Ex.D17 is the notice dated
NC: 2024:KHC:8464
23.01.1986 and Exs.D18 and D19 are the gazette
notification. DW.1 has denied the execution of an
agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and also
receiving the consideration amount and delivery of
possession. She has deposed that defendants are in
possession of the suit schedule property and the
defendants have produced the RTC extracts from the year
2004-05 to 2009-10 from Exs.D2, D3, D6 to D12, which
reflects the name of defendants in the revenue records
and also it discloses that the defendants are in possession
of the suit schedule property.
13. From the perusal of Exs.D2, D3, D6 to D12,
there is presumption in regard to the entries in the
revenue records as per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964. The plaintiff has not rebutted the
presumption by leading independent evidence. The trial
Court was justified in drawing a presumption. The
defendants have denied the execution of Ex.P6. The
plaintiff has not taken any measures to file a suit for
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:8464
specific performance of contract. The trial Court on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly
held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the possession
over the suit schedule property and also rightly dismissed
the suit. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of
material evidence on record has rightly dismissed the
appeal. Hence, I do not find any substantial questions of
law that arise for consideration in this appeal and find any
error apparent in the impugned judgments.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The impugned judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below are hereby
confirmed.
No order as to the costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSB
