The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the second appeal preferring the plaint of title. The appellant claimed ownership based on a 1971 endorsement but the court found lacked comprehensive evidence and the competent authorities had granted occupancy to the respondent in 1982. The appeal was held to be devoid of merits.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
R.S.A.No.3056/2006
BETWEEN:
PUTTALINGAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED 39 YEARS R/O ARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE C.A.KERE HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI M SHIVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SIDDAIAH S/O LATE KARIYA BOYI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O ARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE C.A.KERE HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 428. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V S NARAYANA, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.8.2006 PASSED IN R.A.No.29/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
2
DATED 2.7.2003 PASSED IN OS.No.508/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), MADDUR.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2006 passed in R.A.No.29/2003 by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandya, wherein the appeal came to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2003 passed in O.S.No.508/2000 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Maddur, and ultimately, suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has presented this appeal.
the parties are addressed in accordance with their ranks and status as stood in the trial court.
3
Siddaiah and defendant is one Siddaboyi son of late Kariya Boyi. Both the plaintiff and defendant are resident of Aruvanahalli village, C.A. Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk.
and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property which is a dry land bearing Sy.No.11, measuring 01 acre 27 guntas assessment Rs.50 situated at Aruvanahalli village, C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur taluk, bounded on East by: land of Konthaiahna Siddaiah, West by: Thoti Inam land belonging to Siddaiah son of Chikkasiddaiah, North by: land of Konthaiahna Siddaiah and South by: land of Patel Ramanna.
4
Aruvanahalli village, C.A. Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk. Plaintiff’s father-in-law, earlier to which her grandfather-law have been in occupation and possession of the same from more than 100 years and after the abolition of the Inam, the land vested with the Government. The father-in-law of the plaintiff applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner Inam Abolition Act, Mandya for registration of the occupancy rights by virtue of recognizing his tenancy and occupation. Under Section 10 of the Karnataka Inam Abolition Act, the occupancy was granted in favour of plaintiff’s father-in-law Siddaiah son of Gudiana Siddaiah and after the death of plaintiff’s husband, plaintiff continued in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further contended that defendant-Siddaiah obstructed her cultivation during the 4th week of May 1996 and proclaiming that he is the absolute owner of the same by virtue of grant made in favour of his
5
father- Kariyaboyi by the Land Tribunal. Hence, she filed a suit.
6. Defendant filed written statement
contending that suit is not maintainable. It is the contention of the defendant that, he is not Sidda Boyi,
he is only Siddaiah s/o Kariya Boyi. He is the successor in interest and the land was granted by the Land Tribunal, Maddur in favour of his father Kariya Boyi in 1982. It is further contended that suit is not maintainable as the schedule property is dedicated to the deity Maramma and he is in occupation of the same, prior to it, his father and forefathers as they are the archaks of the said deity. Defendant denied that after the death of father-in-law and her husband, plaintiff continued to be in possession of the property.
It is further contended that the grand father of the defendant had a wife by name Lingamma. Kariya boyi and Lingamma had only two sons Kempaiah and
6
Siddaiah, later Siddaiah settled at Thorebommanahalli viallge. The defendnat and his father and mtoehr were permanently residing at Aruvanahalli village. They are hereditary archaks of Sri. Maramma temple and since their forefathers were in possession of the property. It is further contended that defendant being the manager of the family, performing pooja and cultivating the suit property. In the year 1980-81 defendant’s father filed an application before Land Tribunal, Maddur, for registration of occupancy rights and after enquiry Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of defendant’s father on 24-8-1982.
7
decree, defendant preferred an appeal before the
appellate court in R.A.No.29/2003 which came to be allowed by judgment and decree dated 05-08-2006. The said judgment and decree is challenged by the plaintiff in this second appeal.
2007 to consider the following substantial question of law:
Whether the learned appellate judge was justified in non suiting the plaintiff on the ground that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
was granted to her father-in-law as per endorsement dated on 31-08-1971 which is marked as Ex.P1, under
which plaintiff claims that she has acquired the ownership for herself and on behalf of legal heirs of
8
Siddaiah and she has succeeded to the ownership of the property.
framed by the learned trial Judge:
“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the grant order passed in favour of her father-in-law by the special Deputy Commissioner of Inams Abolition?
2.Whether the plaintiff further proves that she has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on inheritance right?
9
appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would submit that earlier record is in favour of plaintiff and it is an official one and also dated 31-08-1971 and the defendant comes up with the theory of a grant of the same land on 24-08-1982 has no legs to stand either in law or on facts in terms of earlier grant and having the land being granted to Siddaiah there was no land available for grant in favour of defendant as the land cannot be possessed and enjoyed by two rival claimants a the same time.
10
by the plaintiff and defendant are as under:
Plaintiff
Ex.P1 – Endorsement dated 31-08-1971 Ex.P2 – Tax paid receipt Ex.P3 - Endorsement
Defendant
Ex.D1
passed by the learned trial judge in O.S.No.508/2000 and R.A.No.29/2003 passed by learned first appellate
judge are as under:
In OS No.508/2000
“The suit is decreed as prayed in prayer column No.1(a)(b). Prayer column No.1(c) is rejected as not pressed. The defendant or any person on his behalf are restrained from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.
The parties to bear their costs.”
In R.A.No.29/2003
11
“The appeal is allowed:
12
and also enabling document for grant of land. It is in
Kannada language which reads as under:
DqÀðgï £ÀA.J¸ï.J¯ï.J.M 83&231/68-69 E£ÁA gÀzÀÝwAiÀÄ ¸ÉàµÀ¯ï qÉ¥ÀÄån ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.8.71. PÀ«ÄõÀ£ÀgÀªÀgÀ PÀZÉÃj, ªÀÄAqÀå vÁjÃRÄ---------
JAqÁ¸ïðªÉÄAmï
ªÀÄAqÀå r¹ÖçPÀÄÌ ªÀÄzÀÆÝgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¹.J PÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄ CgÀĪÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ²æà ¹zÀÝAiÀÄå AiÀĪÀjUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ - ¤ÃªÀÅ vÁjÃRÄ ---- gÀ°è CgÀĪÀ£ÀºÀ½î E£ÁA UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀĪÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ ªÀåQÛ ¸ÀA§AzsÀªÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ««zsÀ jÃwAiÀÄ E£ÁA gÀ¢ÝAiÀiÁw 1957£Éà DPÀÄÖ C£ÀĸÀj¹ ¤ªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉà ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ Cfð PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ¥ÀgÀ²Ã°¹ ¸ÀzÀj E£ÁA UÁæªÀÄzÀ F PɼÀUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀzÀj DPÀÄÖ 10£Éà ¸ÉPÀëð C£ÀĸÀj¹ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß »qÀĪÀ½zÁgÀ£ÁVAiÀÄÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ SÁvÉ zÁgÀ£ÁVAiÀÄÆ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛ.
¤ÃªÀÅ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ----- ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÀÄß ¦æëÄAiÀÄA DV ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¥Á®Ä PÀAvÀÄUÀ¼À°è ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
endorsement as it is. As I am conversant with Kannada Language, I write the substance of Ex.P1 in English. The proceedings are numbered as No.SLAO:R:83 & 231/68-69 dated 31-8-1971 and it is written as ‘Endorsement’. It is referred in the left
hand top corner as Order. Office name is called as
13
“Inam Abolition Special Deputy Commissioner.” The
subject matter is endorsement and one Siddaiah resident of Aruvanahalli village, C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk was granted land under Inam Abolition Act under Section 10. The grant document is issued in shobby sheet of paper. First page does not contain signature. However, in the backside, there are three
columns which are mentioned as under:
| Village | Survey No. | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Aruvanahalli Mori Siddaiah s/o Gudiana Siddaiah |
20/4 | 0-33 |
| 8/3 | 0-06 | |
| 9/9 | 0-19 | |
| 19 | 1-02 | |
| As per Section 4 in the name of Morisiddaiah |
No.11 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas is shown as
14
granted to Maramma Devaru. It is the land situated in Aruvanahalli. The said Siddaiah has made
application and in this connection occupancy rights was decided under Section 10 Inams Abolition Act.
marked. Thereafter one line is drawn and bifurcation is made shown the suit schedule property in the case is being granted to Maramma Devaru.
dispute, the respective holders would be responsible. This endorsement is given in respect of land in survey No.11 to the extent of 1 acre 27 guntas of Aravanahalli village. That tells that it is true that the grant was made in favour Gudisiddaiah, but
15
Puttalingamma wife of Late Siddaiah is in possession of the property. So what could read from that is, one Gudisiddaiah is son of Morisiddaiah made application and there are no records to be given in response to the endorsement. The application is given by Puttalingamma who is the wife of Late Siddaiah. It is not clarified by the plaintiff as to plaintiff is Gudisiddaiah or boyisiddaiah. Insofar as plaint is concerned, defendant’s name is shown as Siddaiah Boyi. Ex.P1 does not provide a comprehensive or understandable aspect in creating or extinguishing or transferring right as required under law.
16
Sri. B.r.Srinivasamurty, member. Detailed discussion is made in Kannada and the possession of one Siddaiah seeking of the occupancy rights by the applicant is also discussed. For all the interested parties, Form No.9 notice was issued and that is also mentioned. When the matter was called in the open court Kariya boyi appeared and his statement was recorded and thereafter records were perused and it was found that in Aruvanahalli village, land in Survey No.11 to the extent of 1 acre 27 guntas has been attached to Maramma Temple and it is an inam land and applicant is performing daily pooja and other activities, taxes are being paid and cultivating the land. In the circumstances the Tribunal in its order clearly mentioned that Kariyaboyi was granted occupancy rights of the land to the extent of 1 acre 27 guntas of Survey No.11 of Aruvanahalli village. Ex.D3 is the challan for having paid Rs.100/-. Ex.D3 is the
17
notice dated 30-6-1982. Ex.D4 is the public notice dated 29-12-1980. Ex.D5 is the endorsement dated 7-6-1983.Ex.D6 is the mutation register extract and Ex.D7 is the receipt.
by the plaintiff for grant of property. Now her endorsement is earlier and of the year 1971 as per Ex.P1. It cannot be called as a grant letter or the order. But it is on half sheet and stated to have been issued on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, wherein four lands are mentioned at the top and nothing is mentioned regarding them and 5th land is concerned, it is mentioned as 1 acre 27 guntas of land in survey No.11. Incidentally, it is not the claim of the plaintiff all the above 4 lands mentioned in Ex.P1. Thus, pleadings must satisfy the right through facts. If those are all the properties mentioned in Ex.P1 there was no impediment for the plaintiff to mention to
18
whom those survey numbers belonged, but that died not had happen. More particularly, it is a rival claim in respect of the schedule property. Legally applicable documents are Exs.D1, 2 and 3. I find the seniority of the documents in terms of date cannot cure the inherent and legal defect and cannot regularize the irregularity and cannot replace illegalities by legality. In the over all circumstances, the plaintiff Puttalingamma has made a claim.
plaintiff/appellant that plaintiff filed a suit seeking
19
declaration over the schedule property against Siddaboyi and the suit was decreed in OS
No.508/2000. However, Siddaiah son of Late Kariya boyi preferred an appeal in RA No.29/2003 which came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed in OS No.508/2000 came to be set aside.
20
The substantial questions of law is answered
accordingly.
is devoid of merits and it fails. Hence, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
tsn*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned appellate judge was justified in non-suiting the plaintiff on the ground that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
Whether endorsement Ex.P1 constitutes a valid grant order creating ownership in favour of the plaintiff against a rival claim by the defendant under Section 10 of the Karnataka Inam Abolition Act?
Puttalingamma W/o Late Siddaiah
Siddaiah S/o Late Kariya Boyi
N.K. Sudhindrarao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
