The High Court of Karnataka rejected the second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. The court held that there were no substantial questions of law available since the matter was based on facts without a declaration of title and lacked proper title documents.
The second appeal was rejected as it did not present substantial questions of law.
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 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
R.S.A. No.424 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT MADAKARIPURA, VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, AND DISTRICT – 577 501.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.M.T. JAGAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SIDDA NAIK @ SIDDAPPA, S/O. HARTHA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT MADAKARIPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, AND DISTRICT – 577 501.
…RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.09.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.8/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
2
06.12.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.96/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Though this matter is listed today for admission,
the same is taken up for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
3
absolute owners of the suit property - vacant site No.61 measuring 60 X 40 situated Madakaripura village, Chitradurga Taluk. The suit was filed against the defendant seeking perpetual injunction stating thereby that the defendant despite having no right, title and interest over the schedule property is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are absolute owners and they are in peaceful possession and
4
enjoyment over the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference from the defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief’s as sought from the defendant?
4. What order or decree?
the oral and documentary evidence as under:
FOR PLAINTIFFS’
P.W.1 : Narayanaswamy P.W.2 : Sanna Rangappa P.W.3 : P. Shankarappa Ex.P1&2 : Assessment register extracts Ex.P3&4 : DCB register extracts Ex.P5&11 : Tax paid receipts Ex.P.12 : Grant certificate
FOR DEFENDANT
D.W.1 : Sidda Naika D.W.2 : Byrappa D.W.3 : G.Siddesh Ex.D1 : Original Hakku Patra Ex.D2 to 4 : DCB register extracts Ex.D5 &6 : Revenue paid receipts Ex.D7 : Endorsement FOR COURT COMMISSIONER
Ex.C1 : Commissioner reported Ex.C1(a) : Commissioner warrant
trial, decreed the suit. Against which, plaintiff preferred an
5
appeal in RA No.8/2019 which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have presented this second appeal.
6
agitated on the facts. Section 100 is exclusively meant for adjudicating the matter bearing substantial questions of law. It is clear, that the appeal filed by the plaintiffs is regarding the schedule property and in the opinion of the trial court and appellate court, there is a cloud on the title and there is no relief of declaration. The plaintiffs failed to file specific and acceptable documents of title of the suit schedule properties.
In the absence of substantial questions of law, I do not find the appeal is fit to be admitted. Hence, the same is
rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
akv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC is maintainable absent substantial questions of law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. Narayana Swamy
R. Thimanna
Sidda Naik @ Siddappa
N.K. Sudhindr Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
