High Court dismissed Regular Second Appeal against orders of lower courts which rejected plaintiffs' suit for injunction regarding agricultural land. Appellants failed to prove possession.
Regular Second Appeal dismissed; lower court orders confirming dismissal of suit for injunction stand.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.1559/2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1559 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
SINCE DEAD BY L.RS
RSA No.1559/2009
2
3(A) SMT PUTTAMMA W/O SIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3(B) CHANDRANNA S/O SIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
3(C) THIPPESWAMY S/O SIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
3 RSA No.1559/2009
CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
... APPELLANTS
| (BY | SRI: B M IRISHAD AHMED, ADV FOR |
|---|---|
| M/S: RAVIVARMA KUMAR ASSTS, ADVS) | |
| AND |
: |
| 1. | THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY |
| DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE | |
| VIDHANA SOUDHA | |
| DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI | |
| BANGALORE-560 001. | |
| 2. | THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT |
| CHITRADURGA-577 501. | |
| 3. | TAHSILDAR CHALLAKERE TALUK |
| CHALLAKERE-577 522. | |
| 4. | SRI. THIPPESWAMY DEVARU (DIETY) NAYAKANAHATTY |
| CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 | |
| REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER. | |
| 5. | PRABHUSWAMY S/O SOMANNA |
| AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS | |
| 6. | MALLIKARJUNA |
| S/O G. RUDRAPPA | |
| AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS | |
| 7. | BASAVARAJA |
| S/O PRABHANNA | |
| AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS |
RSA No.1559/2009
4
RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 ARE R/AT NAYAKANAHATTI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: MAHESH R UPPIN, ADV FOR R4, SMT: AKKAMAHADEVI, AGA FOR R1 TO 3, R5 TO 7 ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 15.07.2009 PASSED IN RA NO.75/2008 ON THE FILE THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2008 PASSED IN OS NO.263/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), CHALLAKERE.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The appellants have challenged the judgment
and decree of the Courts below dismissing their suit and appeal claiming the relief of injunction restraining the respondents (defendants) from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property i.e., agricultural land described in the schedule to the plaint.
RSA No.1559/2009
5
this appeal are as under:
Parties will be referred as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of
convenience.
It is the contention of plaintiffs that the first plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property as tenant since from the year 1965 and even as on the date of suit, he continued in possession and as there was an obstruction to his possession by the defendants, he instituted the suit for injunction.
The defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the averments made and contended that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and as the suit land is the land belonging to the deity - defendant No.4, it is looked after by defendants 5 to 7 and therefore, they contended that the
RSA No.1559/2009
6
question of granting injunction does not arise as the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property.
The Trial Court framed the issues calling upon the plaintiffs to prove the lawful possession and obstruction. Accordingly, the plaintiffs examined PWs.1 and 2 and in their evidence, got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P7. The defendants examined DWs.1 and 2 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D27. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit property. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred RA No.75/2008 and the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on merits. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the present appeal has been filed.
RSA No.1559/2009
7
appellants and also learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Counsel for respondent No.4.
Counsel for the appellants that the suit property is the land belonging to the deity defendant No.4 and they are in possession of first plaintiff since from the year 1965 and therefore, it is his contention that the Courts below have overlooked the evidence that has been adduced by the appellants and hence, he submits that there is a substantial question of law for consideration.
Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Counsel for respondent No.4 supports the judgment and decree of the Courts below.
RSA No.1559/2009
8
record of rights at Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 pertains to the years 1975-76 to 1979-80, Ex.P2 is upto the year 1983, Ex.P3 pertains to the years 1985-86, 1986-87, Ex.P4 is of the years 1970-71 to 1974-75, Ex.P5 pertains to the years 1972-73 to 1974-75, so also Ex.P6 pertains to the years 1983-84. Though in the record of rights in the suit land, the name of first plaintiff appears in the cultivator’s column, the plaintiff has not produced any records subsequent to the year 1987. The present suit
was instituted in the year 2002. So for about 15 years prior to the institution of suit as to whose name was appearing in the cultivator’s column is not disclosed by producing the records.
produced the record of rights from the year 1975-76 till the date of institution of suit at
RSA No.1559/2009
9
Exs.D1 to D23 and perusal of these record of rights would reveal that the name of first plaintiff was not appearing in the record of rights till the date of institution of suit. The defendants have also produced the order of Deputy Commissioner at Ex.D24, wherein the appeal filed by the appellants was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. Anyhow, the question regarding the grant of occupancy rights is said
to have been pending as on the date of institution of suit. Perusal of the record of rights and the documentary evidence produced by the parties does not reveal that plaintiff was in possession of the property as on the date of institution of suit.
RSA No.1559/2009
10
DWs.1 and 2 states that defendant No.4 is in possession of the suit property. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration the oral evidence and on appreciation of the same, did not accept the case of plaintiffs as it was not corroborated by the documents. So the Courts below on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence have come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have not proved the possession.
In such circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law for consideration.
Consequently, the appeal fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
*bgn/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises regarding the appellants' alleged possession of the suit property.
Whether appellants successfully proved lawful possession and obstruction.
Whether lower courts correctly dismissed the appeal on facts.
Banna S/o Late Muddanna
Gajjappa S/o Late Muddanna
Basappa Savangi
State of Karnataka
Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga
Kiatappa S/o Javarah
A.S. Pachapura
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
