Karnataka High Court
Smt Saraswathi vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46109
RSA No. 1170 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1170 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SARASWATHI
W/O. LATE. KRISHNASWAMY
@ MR. THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT 2126, DEVARAJA MOHALLA,
MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 025
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMARAVEENDRA N. AND
SRI. V. RANGA RAMU, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
signed by VIDHANA SOUDA,
SUNITHA K S BENGALURU,
Location: KARNATAKA- 570 001.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
MYSURU CITY, MYSURU,
MYSURU DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.P. MALIPATIL, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46109
RSA No. 1170 of 2024
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2024
PASSED IN RA.NO.233/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.09.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1269/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the
Judgment and Decree dated 16.04.2024 passed in
R.A.No.233/2023 by the Learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, C.J.M, Mysuru and the Judgment and Decree dated
01.09.2023 passed in O.S.No.1269/2018 by the learned IV
Additional Civil Judge, JMFC, Mysuru.
2. For convenience, parties are referred to as per
their ranking before the trial court. The appellant is the
Plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants.
NC: 2024:KHC:46109
3. The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants
for Permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that
she is the owner and in possession of the Suit Schedule
Property. Initially Suit Schedule Property belongs to one
S.Krishnaswamy. The landed property in Sy.No.92 of
Mysuru Village initially belonged to Smt.
Nirmalakshmmanni W/o T.B.Krishne Urs. She sold the Suit
Schedule Property in favour of Gowramma under an
unregistered instrument dated 15.01.1973. The Plaintiff's
husband purchased the same under an unregistered
instrument dated 10.05.1983. The Plaintiff is in possession
of the Suit Schedule Property ever since 03.08.1990.
Defendant No.2 has initiated some proceedings to evict
the occupants of Sy.No.92, claiming that the said land is
the government land. Several occupants of Sy.No.92 have
obtained declaratory relief and prohibitory injunction
against the defendants by filing the suits. Defendant No.2
tried to interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule property. Hence, a
NC: 2024:KHC:46109
cause of action arises for the plaintiff to file the suit.
Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.
4. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through
the counsel but did not file the written statement. The
Plaintiff, to prove her case, examined herself as PW1 and
marked 5 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The Defendants
have not placed any oral documents. The trial court, after
recording the evidence, framed the following points for
consideration and the trial court, on the assessment of
oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the
plaintiff vide Judgment dated 01.09.2023. The Plaintiff,
aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.1269/2018, filed an appeal in R.A.No.233/2023 on
the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore.
The Appellate Court, on re-assessment of oral and
documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide
judgment dated 16.04.2024. The plaintiff aggrieved by the
Impugned Judgments filed this Regular Second Appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:46109
5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff's
husband purchased the Suit Schedule Property under an
unregistered instrument dated 10.05.1983 since, from the
date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession of
the Suit Schedule Property. He submits that the Defendant
No.2 is trying to evict the occupants of Sy.No.92. He
submits that the said land is not a Government land. The
Defendant No.2 has no right to evict the occupants of
Sy.No.92. He submits that the plaintiff has produced an
unregistered instrument to establish her ownership over
the Suit Schedule Property. The Courts below have not
properly appreciated the material on record. Hence, on
these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The
Plaintiff to prove her case examined herself as PW1. She
reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief
and to establish that the plaintiff is the owner and in
NC: 2024:KHC:46109
possession of the Suit Schedule Property produced the
documents. Ex.P1 is the marriage invitation card. Ex.P2 is
the death ceremony card of R.Kirshnaswamy. Ex.P3 is the
death certificate of R.Krishnaswamy. Ex.P4 is the
unregistered sale deed dated 10.05.1983. Ex.P5 is the
unregistered sale deed dated 15.01.1973. From the
perusal of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 it reveals that the plaintiff's
husband had purchased site No.21 in Sy.No.92 but from
the perusal of schedule of the Suit Schedule Property, it
does not disclose Site.No.21 but has shown that the
portion of Sy.No.92 of Mysore Kasaba village, Kasaba
Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The schedule shown in the plaint does
not tally the site number mentioned in Ex.P4. Further, the
plaintiff has also not produced any revenue records to
establish her possession over the Suit Schedule Property
except producing Ex.P4, which is an unregistered sale
deed. It is contended that the plaintiff had paid duty and
penalty. The plaintiff has not examined any adjacent
owners to establish her possession over the Suit Schedule
Property. It is well settled that in a suit for a bare
NC: 2024:KHC:46109
injunction, the plaintiff is required to show the possession
and interference. Admittedly, in the instant case, except
producing Ex.P4, the plaintiff has not produced any
records to establish her possession. Both the courts below
were justified in recording the finding that the plaintiff has
failed to prove her possession over the Suit Schedule
Property and rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do
not find any error in the impugned judgments or any
substantial question of law that arises for consideration in
this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
i) Appeal is dismissed.
ii) The Judgments and decrees passed by the
courts below are hereby confirmed.
iii) No order as to the cost.
NC: 2024:KHC:46109
iv) In view of dismissal of appeal, IA
No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly
IA No.1/2024 is disposed off.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
RCK
