Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sharadamma vs Smt. Narasamma on 4 January, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:644
MFA No. 2473 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2579 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2473 OF 2023 (CPC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2579 OF 2023 (CPC)
IN MFA NO. 2473/2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARADAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE D.C PUTTARANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
OCCUPATION HOUSE WIFE,
RESIDING AT: DASAPANAPALYA VILLAGE,
KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KANTHARAJU N.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 1. SMT. NARASAMMA,
Location: HIGH WIFE OF LATE RANGAIAH,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DYAVAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
2. SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH,
SON OF LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DYAVAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:644
MFA No. 2473 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2579 of 2023
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
3. SRI. DODDARANGAIAH,
SON OF LATE. RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DYAVAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
4. SMT. RANGAMMA
SON OF LATE. MUDDAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DASAPANAPALYA VILLAGE,
KUDUR HOBLI, MANAGDI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
5. SRI. PUTTARANGAIAH,
SON OF LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DYAVAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 131.
6. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR,
SON OF PUTTARANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DYAVAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
7. SRI. ANIL KUMAR,
SON OF LATE. MUDDAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DASAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE,
KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:644
MFA No. 2473 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2579 of 2023
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1
IN O.S.NO. 599/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MAGADI, DISMISSING I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
IN MFA NO. 2579/2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARADAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE D.C PUTTARANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
OCCUPATION HOUSE WIFE,
RESIDING AT: DASAPANAPALYA VILLAGE,
KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KANTHARAJU N.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NARASAMMA,
WIFE OF LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DYAVAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
2. SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH,
SON OF LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DYAVAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
3. SRI. DODDARANGAIAH,
SON OF LATE. RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DYAVAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:644
MFA No. 2473 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2579 of 2023
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
4. SMT. RANGAMMA
SON OF LATE. MUDDAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DASAPANAPALYA VILLAGE,
KUDUR HOBLI, MANAGDI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
5. SRI. PUTTARANGAIAH,
SON OF LATE RANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DYAVAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 131.
6. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR,
SON OF PUTTARANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DYAVAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
7. SRI. ANIL KUMAR,
SON OF LATE. MUDDAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DASAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE,
KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO.2
IN O.S.NO. 599/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MAGADI, DISMISSING I.A. NO.2 FILED UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:644
MFA No. 2473 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 2579 of 2023
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
the counsel appearing for respondents.
2. This appeal is filed against the Order passed by the
Trial Court on I.A.No.1 and 2 of O.S.No.599/2022. I.A.No.1
was filed under 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary
injunction against defendants restraining them from interfering
in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit
schedule property. I.A.No.2 is filed before the Trial Court under
Order 39 and Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction
against defendants from alienating the suit schedule property.
Both the applications are rejected. Hence, the present two
appeals are filed by the plaintiff.
3. Learned counsel for appellant has vehemently
contended that one Narasamma and her children have
relinquished their right in respect of the suit schedule property
on 28.10.1969 and there after the erstwhile owner has sold the
property in favour of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated
02.03.1978 and mutation entry was made in No.18/1237/54-55
evidencing with the name of Vendor and it has been mutated.
NC: 2024:KHC:644
Subsequently on purchase made by the plaintiff MR.
No.6/1978/1979 was entered and the same evidences the fact
that the name of the appellant has been entered into in the
revenue records and subsequently mutation registration has
been rejected on the ground of fragmentation. The same has
been challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and the
Assistant Commissioner granted stay and the appeal is pending
before the Assistant Commissioner. Learned counsel also
submits that with regard to the entering the name of
respondents in the revenue records, the same is challenged
before the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagar in Revision
Petition No.50/2021-22 and the same has been allowed and the
matter remitted to the Tahasildar to reconsider the same vide
Order dated 19.12.2023. Learned counsel also vehemently
contends that during the pendency of the suit Trial Court
committed error in rejecting the both applications, only on the
ground that original documents are not produced and only the
zerox copies are produced. The very approach of Trail Court is
erroneous in rejecting the applications and coming to the
conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the
property and on the other hand the revenue records are
NC: 2024:KHC:644
standing in the name of the respondent. Learned counsel also
submits that when there is a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff,
even continuing the entries in the name of respondent will not
create any right. Hence, the very approach of the Trial Court is
erroneous and it requires interference and this Court has to set
aside the Order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.1 and 2.
Learned counsel also places the original documents before this
Court along with the memo dated 10.07.2023, i.e., certified
copies of all the documents and also the sale deed executed in
his favour, i.e., original sale deed and counsel submits that the
matter may be remitted to Trial Court to reconsider the matter.
He is ready to produce the original documents before the Trial
Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits
that the very contention of the appellant/plaintiff that the
respondents have executed the relinquishment deed dated
28.10.1969 is disputed and they are not admitting the same.
Learned counsel submits that the sale deed was made in favour
of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 02.03.1978 and the same
has not seen the light of the day from the date of the purchase
and all the documents stands in the name of respondents. The
NC: 2024:KHC:644
same is taken note of by the Trial Court, while rejecting the
applications filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, i.e.,
I.A.No.1 and 2 and has not committed any error in rejecting
those two applications. So, it does not require any
interference.
5. Having heard the counsel appearing for appellant
and counsel appearing for respondents and on perusal of the
certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.07.1954, sale deed
dated 27.03.1968, relinquishment deed dated 28.10.1969, sale
deed dated 02.03.1978 and also the mutation entry
No.18/1237/54-55 evidencing that the name of the vendor has
been mutated in respect of suit schedule property and so also
certified copy of records of rights registered under the name of
appellant's vendor Narasamma wife of Ramakrishnappa in
respect of suit schedule property issued by the Tahasildar.
Learned counsel also relied upon the certified copy of mutation
entry No.6/1978-79, certified copy of encumbrance certificate
issued by the Sub-Registrar commencing from 01.04.1978 to
24.03.2010 and certified copy of encumbrance certificate
issued by the Sub-Registrar, Magadi for 34 years commencing
from 01.04.1977 to 29.05.2010. Learned counsel also placed
NC: 2024:KHC:644
reliance upon the copy of the application filed by the husband
of the appellant for entering the name of appellant in the
computerized RTCS and so also endorsement issued by the
Tahasildar dated 10.10.2012, certified copy of the FIR dated
14.12.2018 together with complaint filed by the appellant
against Rangamma, Anilkumar before the Kudur Police Station,
certified copy of the charge sheet together with spot mahazar,
wound certificate and also copy of FIR dated 27.07.2021
together with complaint filed by the appellant against
Doddarangaiah, Puttarangaiah, Chandrashekar, Anilkumar,
Rangamma, Rakesh, Raja and Ravi and also Mahazar and one
more copy of the complaint filed against the respondent
together with the acknowledgment for having received the
complaint. Learned counsel by producing these documents
vehemently contend that the matter requires interference,
because the very approach of Trial Court is erroneous and
made an observation that only photocopies are produced and
an observation is made in paragraph 21 of the Order that the
defendants have produced certified copies of the revenue
entries from the year 1970-1971 to till this date. The Trial
Court also made an observation that name of Narasamma
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:644
continued till the year 2020-21 and in the year 2020-2021
name of Doddrangaiah s/o late Rangaiah was entered based on
gift deed executed by Narasamma. Counsel brought to the
notice of this Court that gift deed executed by the Narasamma.
Counsel vehemently contend that the Narsamma along with her
children executed the release deed in the year 1969, so
question of executing the gift deed does not arise at all.
6. Having considered the contention of the counsel
appearing for respondents and also the RTCS continued in the
name of respondents and the same is also observed by the
Trial Court. No doubt there is a sale deed in favour of vender
of the plaintiff and also in favour of the plaintiff which was
executed in the year 1978. Learned counsel submits that
vendor does not belong to the family of the respondents and no
right flows in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff.
7. Having considered the submission of counsel for
plaintiff and also counsel for respondents and on perusal of
reasoning given by the Trial court, particularly in paragraph 21,
it appears that the Trial Court is carried away with the
production of zerox copies and non production of original
copies. The Trial Court made an observation with regard to the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:644
flowing of the title and taken note of possession. No doubt that
plaintiff has to establish his possession as on the date of suit,
when the suit is filed for declaration and injunction. Counsel
produced the documents of order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, setting aside the entering names of respondents
in revenue records and the matter has been remitted to Trial
Court. All these documents are placed before the Trial Court
and Trial Court made an observation that only zerox copies are
produced and original copies are not produced. The matter
requires to be reconsidered in the Trial Court in view of the
documents, which have been placed before this Court along
with the list of documents produced on 10.07.2023. The
plaintiff has to submit these documents and the Trial Court has
to consider the case afresh, in view of the additional
documents, which are produced and look into the matter with
regard to granting the relief. It is also observed by the Trial
Court that dispute relates to item No.2 property, which has
been claimed by the respondents. But, the Trial Court has
rejected the application filed by the appellant in respect of item
No.1 to 3. No doubt, that it is observed that item No.1 has
already been sold and there is a reference in the order also.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:644
Such being the case, when the property was sold, the plaintiff
cannot seek any relief in respect of item No.1. However, at this
stage the counsel submits that he is going to take a decision in
respect of item No.1, while considering the applications which
have been filed by him in view of demand made by this Court
and to take appropriate decision and make submission before
the Trial Court. The Trial Court ought to have taken note, when
there is no dispute with regard to other items, when defendants
did not make any claim in respect of item No.3, it ought to
have considered the prayer in respect of item No.3. The same
has not been considered by the Trial Court while considering
the interim order. Hence, the requires to be remitted to the
Trial Court for consideration afresh. The appellant/plaintiff is
directed to produce the original documents which have been
produced before this Court before the Trial court also, for
consideration of I.A.No.1 and 2. List of documents which were
filed along with the memo before this Court have been returned
to the counsel for the plaintiff to place the same before the Trial
Court.
8. This Court while considering the appeal vide order
dated 19.04.2023, ordered the parties not to alienate,
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:644
encumber or create any third party rights over the suit
schedule property till the next date of hearing. In view of
remitting the matter for fresh consideration, the benefit of
interim order is extended till the next date of hearing.
9. The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the I.A.'s in
accordance with law within 45 days from today.
10. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the orders
passed by this Court in these appeals and decide the same in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NJ
CT: BHK
