The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the First Appeal preferred by Defendant No.3 against a regular suit for possession. It held that the appellant was not an aggrieved person as no specific relief was sought or passed against him, and the trial court's order did not affect his rights.
The appeal is dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
RFA NO.1028 OF 2019 (POS)
BETWEEN :
RAMESH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA NO.4, 1ST MAIN ROAD OPPOSITE TO CANARA BANK YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE 560 064 (DEFENDANT NO.3 NOT RESIDING IN THE CAUSE TITLE ADDRESS) APPELLANT ACTUALLY RESIDING AT SRI RAMESH, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO 228/188, 1ST CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD WEST OF CHORD ROAD VHBS LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 085 … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SRI R VENKATESHALU S/O SRI N RAMAREDDY DIED BY HIS LRS I.E. PLAINTIFF NO 2 PLAINTIFF NO 2 IS
2
ALREADY ON RECORD
RESPONDENT NOS.3(A) TO 3(C) ARE R/AT ANNAPOORNESHWARI FARM HOUSE, JYOTHINAGAR, NEAR SAMBHRAM COLLEGE, VIDYARANAPURA POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT 560 097
3
RESPONDENT NOS.5(a) TO 5(c) ARE R/AT ANNAPURNESHWARI FARM HOUSE, JYOTHINAGAR, NEAR SAMBRAM COLLEGE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE 560 097
4
(BY SRI.K.B.S. MANIAN, ADV. FOR R-1; SRI. C. N. KAMATH, ADV. FOR R-2; SRI. S. V. GIRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R-3, R-4, R-5 R-6 AND R7 SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5824/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the III
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S.No.5824/2003, defendant No.3 therein has preferred this appeal.
5
to as per the ranking before the trial Court.
Schedule –B property to the plaint preferred the above suit for the possession. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the original suit are as under:-
that they become the owners of the Schedule – ‘A’ property measuring 3 acres 5 guntas by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 02.06.1986 – Ex.P4. It is further contended that portion of the property presently numbered as Sy.No.24/1B
6
measuring one acre (Schedule ‘B’) is part of Schedule – ‘A’ property to the plaint and has been encroached by defendants No.1 and 2 and they sought delivery of the possession from them. Defendant No.3, who is the appellant herein is stated to be the developer of the Schedule property engaged by defendants No.1 and 2 and hence, he has been made a party. Defendant No.4 is the vendor of the Schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants No.5, 6 and 7 are the siblings of defendants No.1 and 2.
7
framed the following issues:-
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged illegal and unauthorized occupation of defendant No.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 on the B Schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of plaint B Schedule property?
4. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
5. Whether the court fee paid is insufficient and improper?
6. To what other relief the plaintiffs are entitled?”
examined two witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 – P37 and defendants examined two witnesses and got marked Exs.D1 to D11.
the trial Court has answered the above issues as under:-
8
Issue No.1 – In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 – In the Affirmative, Issue No.3 – In the Affirmative, Issue No.4 – In the Negative, Issue No.5 – Already answered, Issue No.6 – As per Final Order.
The defendant No.1, defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(c), defendant No.5(a) to 5(c), defendants No.6 & 7 are directed to quit, vacate and handover vacant possession of Schedule-B property within three months from the date of this judgment.
It is further held that the plaintiffs are also entitled for mesne profits from the date of suit till possession is restored to them, which is to be decided in a separate enquiry against the aforesaid defendants.
Draw decree accordingly.”
11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court, the legal representatives of the defendant
9
No.2 (respondents No.3, 4 and 5 herein) preferred RFA.No.912/2019. However, they have subsequently withdrawn the above appeal.
21.01.2021 producing the following additional documents:-
10
11
12
judgment passed in O.S.No.5824/2003 effects the right of the appellant in any manner whatsoever.
General Power of Attorney Holder of defendant No.2 and a developer of the land has not been able to state what rights he has got over the Schedule – ‘B’ property to the suit. None of the documents produced by him confer any right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties in his favour. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have not made any specific prayer as against defendant No.3 (appellant herein) and trial Court has also not passed any adverse order as against defendant No.3. By virtue of the trial Court order appellant cannot make any claim in the property on behalf of other defendants against whom there is a specific order. If defendant No.3 has any independent right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, he is always at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The rights
13
adjudicated upon in O.S.No.5824/2003 are rights in personam and not right in rem.
appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, appeal is
dismissed .
Sd/- JUDGE
ag
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is an aggrieved person and the judgment passed in the original suit affects the rights of the appellant in any manner whatsoever?
Whether the appellant has any independent right, title or interest over the suit schedule property justifying the appeal?
Ramesh
Sri R Venkateshalu
M.I. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
