Channappa vs Bhoruka Power Corportion
2024 Latest Caselaw 11768 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Channappa vs Bhoruka Power Corportion on 28 May, 2024

                                            -1-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC-K:3327
                                                     RSA No. 200343 of 2023




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                    KALABURAGI BENCH


                           DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

                                          BEFORE

                          THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA

                       REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200343 OF 2023

                                        (DEC/INJ)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. CHANNAPPA
                   S/O RAMAPPA HOTHPETH,
                   AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
                   R/O: GOGI K, TQ: SHAHAPUR,
                   DIST: YADGIR-585309.
                                                               ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA         BHORUKA POWER CORPORATION
SHERIGAR
                   BY ITS MANAGER,
Location: High
Court of           NEAR BHEEMARAYANAGUDI,
Karnataka          TQ: SHAHAPUR,
                   DIST: YADGIR-585223.
                                                             ...RESPONDENT

                        THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
                   ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
                   DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
                   JMFC, SHAHAPUR IN R.A. NO.03/2021 DATED: 13.04.2023
                   CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN
                   O.S.NO.48/2015, DATED 18.12.2020 BY THE LEARNED ADDL.
                                             -2-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC-K:3327
                                                      RSA No. 200343 of 2023




CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHAHAPUR AND TO DISMISS THE SUIT
AS PRAYED FOR TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING                            ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION,                          THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                                      JUDGMENT

Appeal is listed for hearing on interlocutory application,

there is delay of 39 days in filing the appeal, appeal is

considered on merits, condoning the delay of 39 days, without

notice to the other side.

2. Defendant is in second appeal assailing the

concurrent findings, whereby, the Courts below decreed the

suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction.

3. Suit is for permanent injunction contending that the

plaintiff has purchased the suit property from the defendant

under registered sale deed dated 07.10.1999 for sale

consideration of Rs.1,64,500/- and the defendant has delivered

the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The

defendant without having any right, title or interest over the

suit property is trying to interfere with his peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the same.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3327

4. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by the trial

Court the defendant appeared and contested the suit. The

defendant admitted the ownership of the plaintiff by way of

purchase but denied the possession of the plaintiff. The trial

Court based on the pleadings framed necessary issues and by

analyzing the material placed before it, decreed the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial

Court, the defendant preferred appeal before the first Appellate

Court. The first Appellate Court by re-appreciating and re-

analyzing of the entire oral and documentary evidence,

confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of facts of the Courts

below, the defendant preferred the present second appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. Appellant's counsel would contend that though the

defendant executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff,

possession of the suit property was not delivered. No materials

are forthcoming to indicate that the defendant is in possession

of the suit property inspite of a registered sale deed been

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3327

executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The

undisputed sale deed dated 07.10.1999 indicates the delivery

of the possession of the schedule property in favour of the

plaintiff. The said sale deed is neither challenged by the

defendant before any competent Court, when the defendant

has not questioned nor disputed the sale deed and the contents

of the sale deed, the defendant estopped from contending that

the possession of the suit property was not delivered to the

plaintiff in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence

Act.

8. The law is well settled that in a suit for injunction

the plaintiff has to establish his lawful possession as on the

date of the suit. The manner in which the Courts below have

considered the entire oral and documentary evidence, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings

of the Courts below does not warrant any interference by this

Court. There arises no substantial question of law for

consideration before this Court in this second appeal.

Accordingly, Court pass the following:

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3327

ORDER

i) The appeal is dismissed.

ii) Judgment and decree of the Courts below stand

confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBS

CT: VD