Dismissed

Hanumanthappa S/O Yallappa Bajentri v. Mahabaleshwarappa Tamanappa Sirasangi

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2013RSA/505/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal against the dismissal of a suit for mandatory injunction and possession was dismissed. The court held that the courts below correctly found the property belonged to the respondents based on sale deeds and that the appellant failed to prove title.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed as not having merit and the courts below correctly held that the defendants proved their title to the property.

Hanumanthappa S/O Yallappa Bajentri Vs… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA

¶6

R.S.A.No.505/2008 (Inj. & Pos.)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Hanumanthappa S/o. Yallappa Bajentri Aged about 54 years, R/o. MPC Nos.1682 & 132, Manihal-Sureban, Ramdurg Taluk-591123.

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

(By Shri Basavaraj Godachi, Advocate.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Mahabaleshwarappa Tamanappa Sirasangi Aged about 56 years,

¶13

Tamanna S/o.Mahabaleshwarappa Sirasangi Aged about 29 years,

¶14

Kumar Suresh S/o.Mahabaleshwarappa Sirasangi Aged about 24 years, All are R/o. Manihal Sureban, Ramdurg Taluk-591123.

… Respondents

(Served.)

This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2007, passed in R.A.No.44/2007 (Old No.13/2001), on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ramdurg, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2001 passed in O.S.No.1/1994, on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ramdurg, etc.,.

¶19

This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the court delivered the following judgment:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 22.2.2001, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Ramdurg, in O.S.No.1/1994, which has been confirmed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ramdurg, in R.A.No.44/2007.

¶22

By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court and also the appellate Court have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶23

Aggrieved by that, the appellant/plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

¶24

¶25

The appellant-plaintiff filed suit in

¶26

O.S.No.1/1994 for mandatory injunction and possession.

¶27

The case of the appellant-plaintiff was that, the property bearing No.MPC132 Gaothana Pada-Jaga measuring 24’ x 13½’ is the open space the front of the house of the plaintiff bearing MPC No.1682. The two properties are adjoining to each other. They are the ancestral properties. The plaintiff is the co-owner. The plaintiff, his family members and other co-owners are using the property bearing No.MPC 132 to reach their house bearing No.1682. The name of the plaintiff and other coowners appears in the panchayat records. The plaintiff and other co-owners are in actual possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶28

The defendants during last week of September 1993 started construction of compound wall by encroaching the suit property bearing MPC No.132 to the extent of 12.5’ north-south and 8’ east-west. The authorities have not taken any action in spite of

¶29

¶30

complaint by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit for mandatory injunction and possession.

¶31

The defendants have contended that they have purchased the suit property which is a part of MPC No.1683 and the entire property belongs to them. There is no encroachment. The defendants have purchased the suit property on 1.6.1972 from Ramappa Fakirappa Rankalkoppa @ Sirsangi. It is denied that MPC No.132 and 1682 are ancestral properties. The plaintiff never used MPC No.132 as his own. The space shown as ABCD in red ink is used by the defendants as part and parcel of MPC No.1683. Therefore, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶32

The trial Court considering the material on record has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property bearing MPC No.132 is their ancestral property and he is using the property as co-owner. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property shown as ABCD in the hand sketch has been encroached by the defendants. Further the trial Court has held that the

¶33

¶34

defendants have proved that the suit property has been purchased by them and it is part and parcel of MPC No.1683. Therefore, the trial Court has dismissed the suit.

¶35

Aggrieved by that, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred appeal in R.A.No.44/2007 (old No.13/2001). The appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 20.11.2007 has dismissed the appeal. Therefore, this second appeal.

¶36

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and decrees cannot be sustained in law. He also submits that the trial Court and also the appellate Court have failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further he submitted that the suit property is part of MPC No.132 and the plaintiff and his family members are using the suit property as front yard to reach their house. The defendants have encroached the suit property. Therefore, the trial Court and also the appellate Court were not justified in dismissing the suit. He

¶37

¶38

therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and decrees cannot be sustained in law.

¶39

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff.

¶40

I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The trial Court and also the appellate Court considering Ex.D.1 sale deed, panchayat permission Ex.D.2, records of right Ex.D.3, Form No.2 Ex.D.4 and property extract Ex.D.5 have concurrently held that the defendants have purchased property bearing MPC No.1683 measuring east-west 48’ and north-south 32’ and they are putting up construction well within their property after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authority. The plaintiff has not produced any documents to prove his title or measurements of the property. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence. I do not find any error or illegality in the findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for

¶41

¶42

consideration in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is

¶43

liable to be dismissed.

¶44

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

Mrk/-

Hanumanthappa S/O Yallappa Bajentri v. Mahabaleshwarappa Tamanappa Sirasangi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanthappa S/O Yallappa Bajentri v. Mahabaleshwarappa Tamanappa Sirasangi

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

M/S D N L Enterprises Vs Miss Chitralekha Thumboochetty

State Bank of Mysore Vs Miss Chitralekha Thumboochetty

Tajunissa Vs Smt Gulnaz Begum

Mallanagouda S/O. Sankanagouda Patil, Vs the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.

Ulavappa Siddappa Inchal, Vs Ishawar Siddappa Inchal

Sri Vasanth Vs Sri Laxmanrao