Karnataka High Court
Sri Doddaiah vs Smt Gowramma on 4 November, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44303
RFA No. 889 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2022 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DODDAIAH,
SON OF MUDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT EWS 104, 1ST D MAIN,
8TH B CROSS, VALAGERAHALLI,
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
2. SRI. RAJU,
SON OF MUDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22, 7TH MAIN,
17TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
Digitally signed KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,
by KAVYA R BENGALURU - 560 060.
Location: High ...APPELLANTS
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. GOWRAMMA,
WIFE OF SRI. RUDRAPPA,
DAUGHTER OF SRI. PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44303
RFA No. 889 of 2022
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 060.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GANGARAJU C, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 03.01.2021 PASSED IN OS No. 3347/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE LX ADD. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, DECREEING, THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is taken
up for final disposal.
This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants,
feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
03.01.2021 passed by the LX Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru(CCH-61) in O.S.No.3347/2017 in
decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of
NC: 2024:KHC:44303
the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from interfering
with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.
2. The parties are referred as per their ranking
before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.16,
site No.146A, measuring 20 X 20 feet, situated at
Valagerehalli village, Gandhinagara, Kengeri, Bangalore
South Taluk, sanctioned by the Block Development Officer
vide order dated 13.05.1972 by Hakkupathra. On
02.05.2017, the plaintiff started construction of a
residential house. At that time, the defendants, who are
strangers to the suit schedule property, without semblance
of right interfered with the construction and stopped the
construction. The plaintiff approached the jurisdictional
police. The police advised the plaintiff to approach the
competent civil court as the matter is civil in nature.
Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:44303
4. Defendants, on receipt of summons, tendered
appearance but not filed written statement.
5. The Trial Court formulated points for
consideration as under;
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, defendant No.1
and 2 have disturbed the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule
property?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is entitled for
the relief, as prayed for?
3) What decree or order?
6. Plaintiff to substantiate her respective claims,
examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.10
documents. The defendants, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunity, have not adduced any evidence.
7. The Trial Court, on examining the material on
record answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that due to some communication gap between the
advocate and defendants, the defendants did not file the
NC: 2024:KHC:44303
statement of objections. By the time the defendants could
file their objections, the Trial Court decreed the suit, which
is nothing but ex parte judgment. He further contended
that the appellants/defendants have good grounds and
merits in the case and request this Court to provide an
opportunity to file a statement of objections and contest
the matter to meet the ends of justice and remind back
the matter to the Trial Court. Hence, prayed for allowing
the appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent objected to
the same and supported the judgment of the Trial Court.
He contended that in spite of providing sufficient
opportunities to the appellants, they did not filed
statement of objections and contested the suit. Hence,
prayed for dismissing the suit.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material
placed on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:44303
11. On perusal of record, the points that would
arise for consideration is as under:
1. Whether the judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court call for interference?
2. Whether the matter be remitted back to the
Trial Court to provide opportunity to the
appellants to contest the case?
12. The plaintiff and defendants claim to be the
owners of the suit schedule property under Hakkupathra.
The plaintiff produced documents to show that she is in
possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants
also tried to put up construction over the suit schedule
property, claiming their right over the suit schedule
property. When both parties claim their right over the suit
schedule property, it is necessary for the Trial Court to
allow the defendants to file written statement and to
contest the matter. The defendant did not filed written
statement, contested the matter, and was not even able to
cross-examine the P.W.1. Such being the case, this Court
NC: 2024:KHC:44303
feels it necessary to allow the defendants to file statement
of objections and contest the matter in order to come to
the right conclusion by the Trial Court about who is the
owner of the suit schedule property and to meet the ends
of justice. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is required
to be set aside and the matter required to be remitted
back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration by giving
opportunity to the appellants/defendants to contest the
matter.
13. For forgoing reasons, this Court passes the
following:
ORDER
a. The regular first appeal is allowed;
b. The judgment and decree dated
03.01.2021 passed by the LX Addl. City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in
O.S.No.3347/2017 is hereby set aside;
c. The matter stands remitted back to the
Trial Court for fresh consideration by giving
opportunity to the appellants/defendants to
NC: 2024:KHC:44303
file written statement and contest the
matter;
d. The appellants shall pay Rs.5,000/- to the
respondent as cost;
e. The parties are hereby directed to appear
before the Trial Court on 25.11.2024
without waiting further notice from the Trial
Court;
f. The Trial Court after providing opportunity
to the defendants, shall dispose of the
matter within one year from the date of
first hearing of the case;
g. The parties are directed to maintain status
quo till any order passed by the Trial Court
after the remand.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
