Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanappa vs Smt Rathnamma on 2 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35591
RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1458 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARAYANAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT CHOWDADENAHALLI,
LAKKUR HOBLI,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESHA M.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT CHOWDADENAHALLI,
Digitally signed by LAKKUR HOBLI,
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA MALUR TALUK,
Location: High Court of
Karnataka
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
...RESPONDENT
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05TH SEPTEMBER, 2020
PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.55 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 07TH MARCH, 2014 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.167
OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., MALUR.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35591
RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the
defendant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 05th
September, 2020 passed in Regular Appeal No.55 of 2014 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Malur (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), confirming
the judgment and decree dated 07th March, 2014 passed in
Original Suit No.167 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC., Malur (for short, hereinafter referred to as
Trial Court), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be
decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking
before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, father of the
plaintiff-Chowdareddy has purchased the suit schedule property
as per the registered Sale Deed dated 05th March, 1984 and on
his demise, the plaintiff is in possession of the same. It is also
NC: 2024:KHC:35591
RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
stated in the plaint that, father of the plaintiff had filed Original
Suit No.257 of 2002 for declaration of title with consequential
relief of permanent injunction against one C.V. Rajappa and
same was transferred to Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kolar and
renumbered as Original Suit No.81 of 2006, which is pending
consideration before the competent Court. Upon the death of
the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and her brother are
pursuing the said suit. It is also stated in the plaint that the
defendant-C.V. Rajappa in the said suit has sold the property in
Khata No.3 assessment No.9 to the defendant in Original Suit
No.167 of 2007 and boundaries are disputed. It is further
stated in the plaint that the defendant has interfered with suit
schedule property, as the suit filed by the father of the plaintiff
is pending consideration against the said C.V. Rajappa (vendor
of the defendant) and as such, plaintiff filed Original Suit
No.167 of 2007 before the Trial Court.
4. On service of notice, defendant entered appearance
and filed written statement contending that the defendant has
purchased the suit schedule property from C.V. Rajappa and as
such, he sought for dismissal of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:35591
RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
5. On the basis of pleadings on record, the Trial Court
framed issues for its consideration.
6. In order to prove their case, plaintiff examined two
witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked 4 documents as
Exhibits P1 to P4. On the other hand, the defendant examined
himself as DW1 and got marked 24 documents as Exhibits D1
to D24.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by judgment and decree dated 07th March, 2014
decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same,
the defendant has filed Regular Appeal No.55 of 2014 before
First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the
plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after considering the
material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 05th
September, 2020, dismissed the appeal, consequently
confirmed the judgment and decree dated 07th March, 2014
passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the
defendant preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
8. I have Heard Sri. Ramesha M.N., learned counsel
appearing for the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC:35591
RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
8. Sri. Ramesha M.N., learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/defendant contended that, both the Courts below
have not properly appreciated the documents produced by the
defendant to establish his right over the suit schedule property
despite there is a dispute relating to the Southern side of the
suit schedule property and as such, sought for interference of
this Court.
9. In the light of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, it is not in dispute that the
father of the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property
as per registered Sale Deed dated 05th March, 1984. The
father of the plaintiff has filed Original Suit No.257 of 2002,
seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of
permanent injunction against C.V. Rajappa (vendor of the
defendant) and same was transferred to Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
Kolar and renumbered as Original Suit No.81 of 2006 and same
is pending consideration before the competent Court. In that
view of the matter, the Trial Court taking into consideration the
evidence on record, particularly with regard to possession of
the suit schedule property lies with the plaintiff, has rightly
decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree
NC: 2024:KHC:35591
RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
has been properly re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court.
The defendant has not produced any acceptable document to
disprove the possession of the plaintiff. In that view of the
matter, both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of
the plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as
devoid of merits at the stage of admission itself, as the
appellant/defendant has not made out a case for interference
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure for
formulation of substantial question of law. Accordingly, Regular
Second Appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
