Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanaswamy vs Sri K Krishnappa on 24 July, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29177
RFA No. 1692 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1692 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
@ GANGANABHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT GAVIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.N.ASWATHNARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K. KRISHNAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
Digitally signed by
SUMITHRA R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
1(a) SMT.RENUKA K.,
KARNATAKA
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
W/O ASWATHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O TAKAHALLI VILLAGE,
SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 105.
1(b) RAMACHANDRA K.B.,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O KOTHNUR VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29177
RFA No. 1692 of 2020
1(c) NAGABUSHANA K.B.,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O KOTHNUR VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101.
2. SRI. M. JAYACHANDRAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.60,
2ND CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
KEB LAYOUT, SANJAYA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
3. SMT.HARSHITA G.M.,
W/O RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT KOLAVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.G.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO C);
SRI.G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR
R2 AND R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.03.2020 PASSED IN
OS No.290/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., AT CHICKBALLAPURA DISMISSING THE
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29177
RFA No. 1692 of 2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
This Regular First Appeal is filed by the plaintiff-appellant
questioning the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2020 passed
in O.S.No.290/2018 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC at Chikkaballapur, whereby the suit filed for
declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the
rank of the parties are referred to as per their rankings before
the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession
and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties. The Suit
Schedule Properties were acquired by Dodda Erappa @ Doddi
Eranna Bhovi who is the grand father of the plaintiff. The said
properties were granted by the Government in his favour and
saguvali chits were also issued. By virtue of grant, the name of
grand father of the plaintiff was entered into the revenue
records. After the death of the grand father of the plaintiff, it
NC: 2024:KHC:29177
was inherited to the plaintiff's father and thereafter, the
plaintiff succeeded the Suit Schedule Properties.
4. The respondents/defendants have filed written
statement and denied the plaint averments contending that the
Suit Schedule Properties were acquired by the Government and
the Government has sold the said property in the year 1953-54
in favour of Dodda Eranna Bhovi. After the death of Dodda
Eranna Bhovi, his son Gangappa sold the property in favour of
Budda Bhovi under the registered sale deed dated 24.09.1966.
After the death of Budda Bhovi, the lands were partitioned
between his sons and the same were allotted to Munishamappa
who is the second son of Budda Bhovi. The said Munishamappa
sold the lands under the registered sale deed dated 11.06.1987
in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, defendant No.1 is in
possession of the Suit Schedule Properties.
5. Based on the pleadings, the trial framed the
following issues;
1. "Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is the
absolute owner and in possession of the suit
schedule property as on the date of filing of the
suit?
NC: 2024:KHC:29177
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the alleged
interference made by the defendants as contended
in para-5 of the plaint?
3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, one
Munishamappa sold the land to Krishnappa under
a registered sale deed dated 11.06.1987?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, vendor
Venkatarayappa sold the suit item No.3 to an
extent of 8 guntas out of which 29 guntas in
favour of defendant No.1 under registered sale
deed dted 4.9.1985?
5. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that, he is the
owner of suit schedule Sy.No.55/3 by virtue of gift
deed executed by M.Narayanaswamy to an extent
of 21 guntas dated 30.7.2014?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as
sought?
7. What Order or Decree?"
6. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and
taking into consideration the oral and the documentary
evidence placed before it, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
Against dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has filed the present
appeal.
7. During the course of the arguments, learned
counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
NC: 2024:KHC:29177
respondents submit that the application IA No.2/2024 is filed
by the appellant for production of additional documentary
evidence and IA No.1/2024 is filed by the respondents for
production of additional documentary evidence and submit that
these documents are necessary for proper and effective
adjudication of the matter. Further, adjudication is necessary
regarding relevancy and admissibility of the documents
produced by way of additional evidence. Therefore, prays to
remand the matter to trial Court.
8. Considering the submissions made, this Court has
opined to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh
consideration in accordance with law after setting aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Therefore,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
matter is remanded to the trial Court for consideration of
additional documents produced by both the parties.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
i. The Regular First Appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 02.03.2020
passed in O.S.No.290/2018 by the I Additional
NC: 2024:KHC:29177
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkaballapur,
is set aside.
iii. Both parties are directed to appear before the
trial Court on 27.08.2024 without expecting
notice from the trial Court.
iv. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit within
a period of 9 months from 27.08.2024.
v. Both parties are at liberty to adduce any
further evidence either oral or documentary, if
they are so advised.
vi. The parties shall co-operate for early disposal
of the case.
vii. The interim order granted by this Court on
13.12.2023 shall be in force till disposal of the
suit by the trial Court.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PN
