Dismissed

Haliah v. Rathnamma W/O Shankaraiah

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2013RSA/1440/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two appeals challenging appellate decrees in suits for declaration and injunction regarding land ownership. Upholding lower courts' findings, the bench held that revenue entries prove the respondents are the possessors and owners, rejecting claims of nominal sale or adverse possession by the appellants.

What did the court decide?

The high court dismissed both retail sets of appeals against the judgment and decree of the senior civil judge.

Haliah Vs Rathnamma W/O Shankaraiah — Partition | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

R.S.A.No.1440/12 c/w RSA No.1439/12 (DEC& INJ)

¶7

IN RSA NO.1440/12

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 HALIAH S/O LATE MARIDEVARU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O GONDEDHALLI VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, DEAD BY LRS

¶10

1(a) CHANNAMMA W/O LATE HALIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O GONDEDHALLI VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK 577 228.

¶11

1(b) CHIDANANDA MURTHY S/O LATE HALAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O GONDEDHALLI VILLAGE AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK 577 228.

¶12

1(c) SUMANGALA, W/O ASHOK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O KADURALLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALORE DIST.-577548

¶13

2 MARULASIDDAIAH S/O LATE MARIDEVARJU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GONDEDHALLI VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK 577 228

¶14

¶15

3 DAKSHAYANAMMA W/O MANADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS HOUSE HOLD R/O MUDIGERE VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK 577 228 … APPELLANTS

¶16

(By Sri. B S KRISHNA, ADV.)

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O SHANKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶19

2 SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶20

BOTH ARE R/O HUNSAGHATTA VILLAGE, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK 577 228. ...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(R1 & R2 SERVED)

¶22

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 29.2.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.50/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 10.10.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.162/2002 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE.

¶23

IN RSA No.1439/2012

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

1 HALIAH S/O LATE MARIDEVARU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O GONDEDHALLI VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, DEAD BY LRS

¶26

1(a) CHANNAMMA W/O LATE HALIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶27

¶28

R/O GONDEDHALLI VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK 577 228.

¶29

1(b) CHIDANANDA MURTHY S/O LATE HALAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O GONDEDHALLI VILLAGE AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK 577 228.

¶30

1(c) SUMANGALA, W/O ASHOK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O KADURALLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALORE DIST.-577548 … APPELLANTS

¶31

(By Sri. B S KRISHNA, ADV.)

¶32

AND:

¶33

1 SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O SHANKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST

¶34

2 SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶35

BOTH ARE R/O HUNSAGHATTA VILLAGE, AMRUTHAOURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK 577 228. ...RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI M.V.HIREMATH, ADV. R1 & R2)

¶37

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 29.2.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 10.10.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.147/2002 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE.

¶38

THESE RSA's COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

RSA No.1440/2012 is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A.No.50/2006 dated 29.2.2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, Tarikere, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.162/2002 dated 10.10.2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC was unsuccessfully assailed.

¶42

In RSA No.1439/2012, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree in R.A.No.51/2006 dated 29.2.2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, Tarikere. R.A.No.51/2006 arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.147/2002 dated 10.10.2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Addl. JMFC at Tarikere.

¶43

Halaiah, Marulasiddaiah & Dakshayanamma filed O.S.No.162/2002 against Rathnamma and Rudramma for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs in the said suit contended that originally their father Maridevaru was the owner of 9 acres 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.7 of Rangapura Village. Maridevaru sold 5 acres of land in the said survey number under a deed of sale dated 16.4.1956 in favour of Rudraiah

¶44

¶45

and his wife Rudramma. Rathnamma, the defendant No.1 is their daughter. It is further contended that the sale deed executed by Maridevaru was for Rs.100. They continued to be in possession of the property even after the aforesaid sale. They further contended that they are in continuous possession of the said property from 1952. Therefore, they have filed the suit for declaration that they are the owners of the property and for certain other reliefs.

¶46

The defendants have filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. They have denied that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property. They further denied that they are the owners of the said property.

¶47

O.S.No.147/2002 has been filed by Smt.Rudramma and Smt.Rathnamma against Halaiah for injunction restraining him from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property. According to them, they are the owners and in possession of the said property. Halaiah S/o Maridevaru has filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. According to him, he has been in possession and

¶48

¶49

enjoyment of the said property.

¶50

The courts below tried the suit separately. The trial court dismissed the suit O.S.No.162/2002 filed by Sri Halaiah and two others. The suit filed by Rudramma and Rathnamma was decreed. The First Appellate Court has confirmed the said decrees.

¶51

Sri B.S.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both these appeals would contend that though Maridevaru had executed a sale deed in favour of Rudraiah and Rathnamma on 16.4.1956 in respect of the suit schedule property, they continued to be in possession of the property. The sale deed is only a nominal sale deed. Alternatively, it is argued that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.162/02 have been in continuous possession of the property since 1962 till this day. Thus, they have perfected their title by adverse possession. Therefore, the Court below ought to have decreed the suit O.S.No.162/02 and dismissed the other suit filed by Smt.Rudramma & Rathnamma in O.S.No.147/2002.

¶52

On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has sought to justify the impugned

¶53

¶54

judgment and decree. It is further argued that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below is on appreciation of the materials on record. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. He prays for dismissal of the appeals.

¶55

As noticed, the contention of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.162/02 is two folded. The first contention is that the sale deed executed by Maridevaru is a nominal sale deed. The 2^nd contention is that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.162/02 have perfected their title by adverse possession.

¶56

The parties have not produced the sale deed dated 16.4.1956 before the trial court. It is not in dispute that Maridevaru, the father of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.162/02 was the owner of the property. Without perusal of the sale deed, it is not possible to come to a conclusion as to whether the sale deed is a nominal sale deed or not. Therefore, the courts below have rightly rejected the first contention. In so far as the 2^nd contention is concerned, it is needless to say that in order to establish adverse possession there must be a plea that plaintiffs are

¶57

¶58

in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property even after the execution of aforesaid sale deed, there is perfection of right by way of adverse possession. He has to plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the purchaser or her successors in title or interest and they having acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period. There is no specific plea in this regard. On the other hand, at one stage, plaintiffs contend that the sale deed executed by their father Maridevaru is a nominal sale deed. In other words, they continued to be the owners of the property because the sale deed executed on 16.4.1956 is a nominal sale deed.

¶59

Apart from the above, after purchase of the property by Rudraiah & Rudramma in the year 1956, revenue entries were transferred to their name in MR No.2/56-57. There was no basis for change of katha and thereafter to the name of the 1^st plaintiff. The order of the Assistant commissioner for change of katha has been challenged by the defendants which has been allowed. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs challenging the said order has

¶60

¶61

admittedly been dismissed. The court below have elaborately considered the issue relating to the possession and rightly come to a conclusion that plaintiffs in O.S.No.162/02 are not in possession of the property. Thus, the finding recorded by the courts below is on proper appreciation of the materials on record and there is no perversity, illegality or irregularity whatsoever in those findings. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law.

¶62

Coming to RSA No.1439/2012, both the courts have concurrently come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs in this suit are in possession of the property. While discussing the merits of the appeal in the other connected appeal RSA No.1440/12, I have held that Rudramma & Rathanamma are in possession of the property. Munidevaru, the predecessor of Halaiah had transferred the property in favour of Rudraiah and Rudramma. The revenue entries have also been transferred immediately after the execution of the sale deed dated 16.4.1956. It is no doubt true that for period between 1968 till 2001, the revenue entries were transferred to the name of Halaiah

¶63

¶64

without any basis. This was rectified by the Assistant Commissioner in his order. The appeal filed by Halaiah challenging the said entries has been dismissed. Thus, it is clear that Rudramma and Rathnamma are in possession of the property. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

KLY/

Haliah v. Rathnamma W/O Shankaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haliah v. Rathnamma W/O Shankaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasappa Vs Kempaiah Since Dead by His Lrs

Mahadeva Naika Vs Nagamani

Smt. Kadaramma W/O Sri. Kadaraiah Vs Sri Siddaiah Since Dead by His Lr

Lokesh Vs S Nagaraja

Sri T N Narasimhaiah Vs Sri Adaviyappa

Nanjappa Vs Smt Puttamma