Karnataka High Court
Sri Kariyappa Chikkaiadanna vs Sri Jagadish on 4 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36086
RSA No. 682 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 682 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI KARIYAPPA CHIKKAIADANNA
S/O NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O CHAMBALIKEDODDI VILALGE
KOKKAREHOSAHALLI DHAKLE
UYYAMBALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
REP BY SPA HOLDER
SRI. LINGARAJU
S/O NINGAIAH @ CHIKKALADANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O CHAMBALIKEDODDI VILLAGE
KOKKAREHOSAHALLI
Digitally signed by
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
SHARMA ANAND UYYAMBALLI HOBLI
CHAYA
Location: High KANAKAPURA TALUK - 562117.
Court of Karnataka
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDAN B K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI JAGADISH
S/O CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O MUTTARAYASWAMY GUDI STREET
RAMANGARA ROAD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36086
RSA No. 682 of 2024
KANAKAPURA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
2. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/O BYRAVESHWARA NITAYA
BIDAD READ
HAROHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TLAUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
3. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O T.M. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O MOODALAPALYA VILLAGE
SOLOUR HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NATARAJ BABA K.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.01.2024 PASSED IN
RA NO.5150/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT, AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, TO SIT AT
KANAKAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2017 PASSED IN
OS NO.286/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36086
RSA No. 682 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff
challenging the Judgment and decree dated 20.01.2024 in
R.A. No.5150/2019 on the file of the II Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara [sitting at Kanakapura]
dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and
decree dated 01.04.2017 in O.S. No.286/2008 on the file
of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kanakapura
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as they are referred to before the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is
the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties
having purchased the same as per the registered sale
deed dated 20.12.2007 and the plaintiff is in possession of
the suit schedule properties and as such it is averred in
NC: 2024:KHC:36086
the plaint that, the defendants without any right over the
suit schedule properties, are interfering with the suit
schedule properties and as such the plaintiff has filed the
suit in O.S. No.286/2008 seeking the relief of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with
the suit schedule properties.
4. On service of notice, the Defendant No.1
remained absent and was placed ex parte. The Defendant
No.2 and Defendant No.3 entered appearance and filed
detailed written statement denying the averments made in
the plaint. It is the specific case of the Defendant Nos.2
and 3 that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit
schedule properties and it is further stated in the written
statement that the wife of the Defendant No.2-Mangamma
is in possession of the suit schedule properties and
accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:36086
5. On the basis of the pleadings on record, the
trial Court has framed the issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish the case the plaintiff has
examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and produced
28 documents and the same are marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.28. On the other hand, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have
examined three witnesses as DW.1 to DW.3 and got
marked 69 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.69.
7. The trial Court after considering the material on
record by its judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017
dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff has preferred the appeal in RA No.5150/2019
before the First Appellate Court and the said appeal was
resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after
considering the material on record, by the judgment and
decree dated 20.01.2024 dismissed the appeal. Being
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this
Regular Second Appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:36086
8. I have heard Sri Chandan B K, the learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Nataraj Baba K, the
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that both the Courts below have not considered
the documents produced by the plaintiff, particularly,
referring to the sale deed dated 20.12.2007 [Ex.P1] and
contended that the issue in the suit is relating to the
boundary dispute between the parties and the said aspect
has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts
below and as such sought for interference of this Court.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent Nos.2 and 3 invited the attention of this
Court to the averments made in the written statement
filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and submitted that the
wife of Defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit
schedule properties and as such the defendants have
NC: 2024:KHC:36086
denied ownership of the plaintiff in the suit schedule
properties and in that view of the matter, both the Courts
below after considering the material on record, rightly
dismissed the suit and the Appellate Court after
considering the finding of facts, rightly confirmed appeal.
11. I have heard the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the records.
12. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has
purchased the suit schedule properties as per the
registered sale deed dated 20.12.2007 [Ex.P1]. On the
other hand, the defendants have taken a plea in the
written statement denying the title of the plaintiff and
further stated that the wife of Defendant No.2 is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties
bearing Municipal Khata No.7076/6504 measuring 60 feet
x 40 feet and the Defendant No.3 is in possession and
enjoyment of the property bearing Municipal Khata
NC: 2024:KHC:36086
enjoyment of the property bearing Municipal Khata
No.7076[A]/6564A/5654B measuring 60 feet x 40 feet and
the same was purchased by them as per separate
registered sale deed dated 03.12.1990 from father of the
Defendant No.1-Chaluvaiah. In that view of the matter,
as the suit schedule properties are vacant sites and it is
not in dispute that the original owner of the suit schedule
properties was father of the Defendant No.1 and as the
Defendant Nos.2 and 3 claim title through father of the
Defendant No.1-Chaluvaiah, I am of the view that the trial
Court, after appreciating the material on record, rightly
dismissed the suit.
13. It is also well established principle in law in the
case of 'Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy [Dead]
by LRs and Others' reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033
wherein it is held that when the title to the property is in
question in bare injunction suit, it is the duty of the
plaintiff to convert the relief sought for in the suit for
NC: 2024:KHC:36086
seeking relief of declaration. In that view of the matter,
both the Courts below, after appreciating the material on
record, rightly dismissed the suit which does not call for
interference in this appeal as there is no perversity in the
Judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the
stage of admission as the appellant has not made out case
for formation of substantial question of law as required
under Section 100 of CPC.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
AN/-
