Karnataka High Court
Shahabuddinasab S/O Sannagousesab ... vs Hajaratsab S/O Hasansab Halageri on 4 March, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4824
RSA No. 100049 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 100048 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100049 OF 2015 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100048 OF 2015
IN RSA NO.100049/2015
BETWEEN:
SHAHABUDDINASAB
S/O. SANNAGOUSESAB BHATTI,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O.KODA VILLAGE,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI-584215
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HAJARATSAB
Digitally signed S/O. HASANSAB HALAGERI,
by SUJATA
SUBHASH AGE: 59 YEARS,
PAMMAR OCC: MANDAKKI BHATTI,
Location: HIGH R/O. KODA, TQ: HIREKERUR,
COURT OF DIST: HAVERI - 584215
KARNATAKA
2. AHAMADASAB
S/O. HASANASAB HALAGERI
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. KODA, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI - 584215
3. ALLABHAKSH SAB
S/O. HASANSAB HALAGERI,
AGE: 49 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4824
RSA No. 100049 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 100048 of 2015
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. KODA, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI - 584215.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SETION 100
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.07.2014 IN R.A.NO.70/2011
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC.,
HIREKERUR AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
06.08.2008 IN O.S.NO.73/2001 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., HIREKERUR, AND DECREE THE SUIT
O.S.NO.73/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE(JR.DN.) & JMFC., HIREKERUR, AS PRAYED FOR, BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEALS WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN RSA NO.100048/2015
BETWEEN:
SHAHABUDDINASAB
S/O. SANNAGOUSESAB BHATTI,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O.KODA VILLAGE,
TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI-584215
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4824
RSA No. 100049 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 100048 of 2015
AND:
HAJARATSAB
S/O. HASANSAB HALAGERI,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: MANDAKKI BHATTI,
R/O. KODA, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI - 584215
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SETION 100
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.07.2014 IN R.A.NO.69/2011
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC.,
HIREKERUR AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
06.08.2008 IN O.S.NO.93/2001 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., HIREKERUR, AND DECREE THE SUIT
O.S.NO.93/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE(JR.DN.) & JMFC., HIREKERUR, AS PRAYED FOR, BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEALS WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4824
RSA No. 100049 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 100048 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein in both the appeals has challenged
the judgement and decree dated 26.07.2014 passed in
R.A.No.70/2011 and R.A.No.69/2001, by the Senior Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C., Hirekerur (the First Appellate Court) against the
dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.73/2001 and decreeing the
O.S.No.93/2001 and O.S.No.73/2001 filed by the appellant for
permanent injunction against the respondents herein.
O.S.No.93/2001 filed by the respondent herein for declaration
and permanent injunction against the appellant herein. Both
suits are clubbed and tried together. The Trial Court has
dismissed the O.S.No.73/2001 filed for permanent injunction
and decreed the suit in O.S.No.93/2001 filed for declaration
and permanent injunction. Against these two judgments and
decrees passed in the suits, the appellant herein has filed two
separate appeals in R.A.No.70/2011 and R.A.No.69/2001 and
the same were dismissed. Hence, against the concurrent
findings of facts, the appellant is before this Court in the
second appeals.
1. The appellant has filed O.S.No.73/2001 against the
respondents herein for permanent injunction contending that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4824
he is in possession over the property. O.S.No.93/2001 filed for
declaration and permanent injunction by the respondent herein
against the appellant. The respondent herein has purchased the
suit land bearing Sy.No.133A measuring 5 guntas bearing Plot
No.1 from one Gopalacharya Ananthacharya Malag under a
registered sale deed dated 04.07.1993 and his name is entered
in the revenue records as a owner. Thereafter, the respondent
has also put up construction of residential house. The appellant
being relative of the respondent, requested the respondent to
reside in the backyard portion of the house and the appellant
was allowed to reside therein as a licensee. Later on the license
was terminated, but the appellant has not vacated and hand
over the possession to the respondent. The appellant has filed
suit for permanent injunction. The respondent has filed suit in
O.S.No.93/2001 for declaration and permanent injunction.
2. The respondent has produced the evidence to prove
that he is the owner of the suit property. Ex.P.1 is the sale
deed produced by the respondent and the consequently the
revenue records which are Exs.P.2 to P.5 prove that the
respondent is the owner and in possession of the suit property.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4824
3. On the other hand, it is the only contention of the
appellant that he is in possession over the property. Where
license is terminated and the respondent has produced the
evidence to prove his ownership and therefore, the permanent
injunction cannot be granted against the true owner. After
license is terminated the possession of the appellant becomes
unauthorized possession. Further appellant has not proved
possession over the property. These factors are well considered
by the Trial Court and upon re-appreciating the evidence
adduced before the Trial Court, the reasons and findings given
by both the Courts below are found to be just and proper based
on the evidence on record. Therefore, the appeals lack merit in
this case, as there is no substantial question of law involved to
consider the appeals. Thus the appeals are liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed by confirming the judgment
and decree passed by both the Court below. Hence, the appeal
is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSP
CT:ANB
