Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ambanna S/O Vithoba Baki vs Sri.Vijayakumar S/O Sitaram Kulkarni on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5630
RSA No. 200146 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200146 OF 2015
(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI AMBANNA S/O VITHOBA BAKI
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SRI CHINNAPPA S/O VITHOBA BAKI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O VITHOBA BAKI
AGED 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
APPELLANT ARE ALL R/O. BHATAGUNAKI,
TQ. INDI, DIST. BIJAPUR-586101.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF (BY SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SRI VIJAYAKUMAR S/O SITARAM KULKARNI,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: CLERK IN PRIVATE INSTITUTION,
BIJAPUR, BABALESHWAR NAKA,
JAMAKHANDI ROAD,
BIJAPUR.
2. SRI VASANT S/O SITARAM KULKARNI,
AGE : 58 YEARS, OCC: CLERK IN MUNICIPALITY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5630
RSA No. 200146 of 2015
CORPORATION, BORIVILI,
MUMBAI.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.01.2015
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
INDI IN RA.NO.1/2013 AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 23.01.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC IN OS NO.68/2003 AND DECREE THE SAID
SUIT IN TOTO.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is against the concurrent finding of the
dismissal of the suit for declaration and injunction which is
confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
3. The plaintiff has claimed ownership over the suit
schedule property measuring 5 acres 3 guntas in Survey No.14
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5630
of Bhairudagi Village, Taluk Indi. Plaintiff claims that this
property was once purchased by the plaintiff's grandfather and
thereafter, the plaintiff's grand father sold the property to
father of the defendants. The plaintiff further claims that
despite sale deed in the year 1948, plaintiffs grandfather did
not handover the possession to the father of the defendant.
Thus, it is claimed that the plaintiff's grandfather has continued
in possession of the suit property and thereafter, the plaintiffs
have continued in possession of the suit property.
4. The defendants resisted the suit.
5. The defendants claimed that they are the owners
and in possession of the suit property by virtue of registered
sale deed of 1948. The Trial Court has perused the records and
has noticed that there is a registered sale deed in the name of
the defendant's father. The Trial Court has also noticed that
the property records stand in the name of the defendants
pursuant to the registered sale deed in the name of defendant's
father. The entries in the property records are not disputed.
The entries in the property records are based on the registered
sale deed. Execution of registered sale deed is not disputed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5630
6. It is also noticed by the Trial Court that there is no
pleading which would attract the plea of adverse possession.
Accordingly, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit.
7. The plaintiffs have filed the appeal challenging the
decree of dismissal of the suit.
8. The First Appellate Court after framing necessary
points for consideration has concurred with the findings of the
Trial Court.
9. The First Appellate Court has also assessed the
evidence on record and has concluded that the claim of title by
way of adverse possession of the property is not established.
In paragraphs No. 26 to 29 of the judgment of the First
Appellate Court has taken note of the pleadings relating to
adverse possession and the requirement of law to claim
adverse possession. The First Appellate Court has also taken
note of the fact that Exs.D.23 to 34 to hold that defendants is
in possession of the suit property. Under the circumstances, the
First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5630
10. Learned counsel for the appellant would urge before
this Court that there is a residential house belonging to the
appellant in the suit property.
11. The particulars of the said residential house is not
forth coming in the plaint. And it is again relevant to note that
the extent of the suit property over which adverse possession is
claimed is 5 acres and 3 guntas. This being the position, this
Court is of the view that the plea of adverse possession over
the building cannot be accepted for want of necessary pleading
and evidence to support such contention. No substantial
question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed..
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BRN
