Karnataka High Court
Smt.Siddamma And Anr vs Devindrappa Gouda on 8 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:247
RSA No. 200221 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200221 OF 2017 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SIDDAMMA
W/O SHARANAPPA MAGERI,
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE ANABI,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR-585121.
2. NAGANGOUDA
S/O BASSANAGOUDA MALIPATIL,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE ANABI,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR-585121.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by SACHIN (BY SRI. R.S.SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
DEVINDRAPPA GOUDA
S/O KALLAPPA GOUDA,
AGE:61 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. JEWARGI (B), TQ: JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 121.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DEEPAK V BARAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SETION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2017 PASSED IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:247
RSA No. 200221 of 2017
O.S.NO.277/2012 BY THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
SHAHAPUR, AND WHICH IS CONFIRMED IN R.A NO.16/2017 BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHAHAPUR, VIDE JUDGMET AND
DECREE DATED 09.06.2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSRTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, Appellants/defendants are assailing
the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2017 in
R.A.No.16/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at
Shahapur, confirming the judgment and decree dated
16.03.2017 in O.S.No.277/2012 on the file of Additional
Civil Judge and JMFC at Shahapur, decreeing the suit of
the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit
properties are the ancestral properties. It is stated in the
plaint that plaintiff's father-Kallappagouda and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:247
Sharanappagouda are the brothers. Sharanappagouda
died leaving behind his wife - Eramma, who died without
leaving behind any legal heirs. Hence, the plaintiff
submitted that after the death of Smt.Eramma (aunt of
the plaintiff) the property shall revert back to the plaintiff
and therefore the plaintiff contended that the defendant
No.1 without having title over the property in question,
alienated the subject matter of the suit property in favour
of defendant No.2 as per registered sale-deed dated
31.05.2006 and same is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence
the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.277/2012 seeking relief of
declaration, possession and permanent injunction in
respect of the suit property.
4. After service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance, and filed detailed written statement denying
the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of
the defendants that Sharanappagouda had two wives
namely, Eramma and Shantamma and after the death of
Eramma, the Shantamma became the owner of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:247
property and defendant No.1 got mutated the revenue
records into his name during the lifetime of Eramma and
Shantamma and therefore the defendant No.1 became
owner of the property by way of adverse possession.
Hence, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings on
record framed the issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, plaintiff has
examined his daughter as PW.1 and produced 64
documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.64
Defendants have examined three witnesses as DW.1 to
DW.3 and got marked 32 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D32.
The trial Court after considering the material on record,
vide judgment and decree dated 16.03.2017, decreed the
suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the
defendants have preferred the appeal in R.A.No.16/2017
before the First Appellate Court and the appeal was
resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after
considering the material on record, dismissed the appeal
NC: 2024:KHC-K:247
dated 09.06.2017 by confirming the judgment and decree
in O.S.No.277/2012. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
defendants have preferred the present second appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel
Sri.R.S.Sidhapurkar, appearing for the appellants and
Sri Deepak V.Barad, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
8. Sri R.S.Sidhapurkar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants invited the attention of the Court to
Ex.D32 and argued that pursuant to the death of Eramma,
the second wife of Sharanappagouda got the schedule
properties and in view of mutation extract dated
25.08.2006, the defendant No.1 became the owner of the
property in question and accordingly sought for
interference of this Court.
9. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Deepak V.Barad
appearing for respondent sought to justify the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and
argued that the revenue records would not enure to the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:247
benefit of defendants to establish their title in respect of
the schedule properties.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on careful examination of the finding
recorded by both the Courts below, it is the case of the
plaintiff that his grandfather Basappagouda had two
children namely Kalappagouda (father of the plaintiff) and
Sharanappagouda. It is stated that Sharanappagouda had
a wife Eramma and she died intestate without any leaving
behind legal heirs. Hence, the properties stands in the
name of Sharanappagouda would revert back to the
branch of Kalappagouga and accordingly made claim for
declaration in respect of the schedule properties.
11. On the other hand, it is the case of defendants
that the said Sharanappagouda had a second wife -
Smt.Shantamma and after death of Eramma, the
Shantamma got schedule property and therefore it was
transferred to defendant No.1.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:247
12. Having taken note of the pleadings on record,
the defendant No.1 has stated that he got the property
through adverse possession in terms of the mutation
registered produced at Ex.D32. However, nothing is stated
and proved before the defendants with regard to under
what circumstances the names of the defendants were
entered in the revenue records. Indisputably,
Sharanappagouda died leaving behind his wife Eramma,
they have no issues. Therefore, the claim made by the
defendants cannot be accepted seeking right over the
properties through adverse possession.
13. I am of the view that both the Courts below
were justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. In that
view of the matter, the appellants have not made out a
case for framing substantial question of law as required
under Section 100 of C.P.C. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed as devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
