Dismissed

Sri. Narasimhaiah v. Sri. Muddamallaiah

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022RSA/1508/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a regular second appeal for permanent injunction, held that no substantial question of law arose. The Court confirmed the lower courts' finding that the respondent established possession and title via a settlement deed, while appellants failed to prove their right.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree below.

Sri. Narasimhaiah Vs Sri. Muddamallaiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1508/2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NARASIMHAIAH S/O CHANNAKOTAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O RANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶9

SRI. NARASAPPA S/O CHANNAKOTAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O JODIDEVARAHALLI VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-571 202.

¶10

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O MUCHAVEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-571 202.

¶11

APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR P.A. HOLDER SRI. KAMBADA RANGAIAH

¶12

… APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.ANANDEESWARA D.R, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. MUDDAMALLAIAH S/O SANNAMUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT L. HALENAHALLI MAJARE, SALAHATTI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-574229.

¶17

… RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF C.P.C. PRAYING AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 15.06.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI, DISMISSIN THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.) AND JMFC, GUBBI.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Present regular second appeal is filed by the

¶23

appellants/defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2015 passed in R.A.No.14/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court') in and by which, the first appellate court while dismissing the

¶24

¶25

appeal confirmed the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.3/2003 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gubbi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court').

¶26

The above suit in O.S.No.3/2003 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming to be in lawful possession of the suit schedule property consisting of land bearing Sy.No.1 measuring 8 acres 39 guntas situated at Sorekaikote village, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk having acquired the same under the registered deed of settlement dated 17.06.1993 executed by his father-in-law- Sri. Chikkbalaiah. That the name of the respondent/plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records and that the respondent/plaintiff has been cultivating the suit schedule property. That the appellants/defendants who are strangers to the suit property having no manner of right, title or interest much less possession over the schedule property were attempting to interfere with peaceful possession and

¶27

¶28

enjoyment of the property of the respondent/plaintiff, constraining the respondent/plaintiff to approach court seeking relief of permanent injunction.

¶29

Appellants/defendants in the written

¶30

statement denying the case of the respondent/plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property belonged to Smt. Narasamma who is the mother of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and mother-in-law of defendant No.3. That the appellants/defendants have been in possession of the suit property, that the respondent/plaintiff has no title or possession over the same property. It is further contended that the revenue proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru challenging the mutation of the name of the respondent/plaintiff in the revenue records which has been allowed and the matter is remitted to Tahsildar, Gubbi for fresh consideration and that the said proceedings are pending for consideration. That the respondent/plaintiff has never been in possession of the

¶31

¶32

suit property. The documents namely deed settlement and revenue records are concocted and the same do not confer any right, title or interest in respect of the suit property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶33

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court

¶34

framed following issues and recorded the evidence.

¶35

"(1). Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

¶36

(2) Whether plaintiff proves the illegal obstruction by the defendants?

¶37

(3) What order or decree?"

¶38

The respondent/plaintiff got examined

¶39

himself as PW.1 and produced two documents as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 by filing the affidavit in lieu of evidence. However,

¶40

he not having tendered himself for cross-examination, his evidence has been discarded. D.W.3. is the power of

¶41

¶42

attorney holder of defendants. D.W.2 is an another witness. The defendants have exhibited ten documents and marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.10.

¶43

On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit restraining the

¶44

appellants/defendants or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the suit property of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, appellants/defendants filed R.A.No.14/2009. Considering the grounds urged by the

¶45

defendants, the first appellate court framed the following points for its consideration.

¶46

and decree requires interference at the hands of this Court?

¶47

(2) What order?"

¶48

On re-appreciation of the evidence, the first

¶49

appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, appellants/defendants are before this Court.

¶50

¶51

Sri.Anandeeswara D.R, learned counsel

¶52

appearing for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submitted that;

¶53

a) The respondent/plaintiff has not established with satisfactory documentary evidence as to his title and possession over the property except producing the Ex.P.1- a deed of settlement dated 17.06.1993 executed by Sri.Chikkabalaiah and the RTC extracts at Ex.P.2. He submits Sri.Chikkbalaiah himself had no right over the property as such conveyance made by him in terms of deed of settlement is not valid and subsisting.

¶54

b) That appellants/defendants have produced

¶55

ten documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.10 whereunder the name of Smt.Narasamma, mother of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and mother -in-law of defendant No.3 has been reflected up to the year 1983-1984. That since the name of the respondent/plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records illegally, the defendants have initiated the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, who

¶56

¶57

has favored their petition by remanding the matter to the Thasildar, Gubbi for fresh consideration and the said matter is still under consideration. In that view of the matter, he submits that respondent/plaintiff cannot claim to be in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

¶58

c) That in the evidence the respondent/plaintiff has not identified the boundaries or the neighbors of this property. That being the fact, the plaintiff himself is not aware of the said schedule property claiming possession. Therefore, he is unjustifiable.

¶59

d) That trial Court and first appellate Court not

¶60

having taken these aspect of the matter to the consideration have erred in decreeing the suit. Further, referring to the deposition of the defendant No.2, he submits that D.W.2 is an official witness who has deposed with regard to the revenue entries of the documents and his evidence would establish the name

¶61

¶62

of Smt.Narasamma being reflected in the revenue records.

¶63

(e). Thus, he submits that the appeal involves substantial question of law warranting interference. Hence, he seeks for allowing the appeal.

¶64

Sri. M.B.Chandrachood, learned counsel

¶65

appearing for respondent/plaintiff submits that:

¶66

a) The name of Sri.Chikkabalaiah has been reflected even in the revenue records produced by the defendants namely Exs.D.1, D.2, and D.3 right from the year 1970-1971 onwards. He being the rightful owner of the property had executed the settlement deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Pursuant to which the name of the respondent/plaintiff was entered into the revenue records.

¶67

b) That appellants/defendants have not even produced any evidence, establishing their relationship

¶68

¶69

with Smt.Narasamma as rightly appreciated and taken note of by the courts below.

¶70

c) That as on the date of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff has established being in possession of the schedule property and the suit being one for bare injunction, the plaintiff has established his right title possession over the property. Hence, he submits that the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are in accordance with law involving no substantial question of law to be considered in this appeal. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

¶71

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶72

parties and perused the records.

¶73

The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property which is an agricultural land measuring 8 acres 39 guntas in Sy.No.1. It is settled principles of law

¶74

¶75

that in a suit for injunction with respect to vacant of land, the possession follows title.

¶76

In the instant case, the respondent/plaintiff

¶77

who has approached the court seeking decree of the

¶78

permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering with his possession, has based his relief on Ex.P1-a registered deed of settlement dated 17.06.1993 admittedly executed by his father-in-law Sri. Chikkabalaiah. Name of the plaintiff is shown in the column Nos.9 and 12(2) of Ex.P2-RTC. D.W.3 the power of attorney holder in his evidence has admitted the relationship between the plaintiff and Sri.Chikkabalaiah to be that of a son-inlaw and a father - in-law. Name of Sri.Chikkabalaiah is reflected even in the documents produced by the defendants as per Exs.D1 to D4, wherein the name of Sri.Chikkabalaiah is continuously reflected in Column No.12 right from the year 1970-71. The trial Court and first appellate court have also taken note of the fact that

¶79

¶80

there is continuity of the name of Sri.Chikkabalaih in the Khathedar column of Ex.D9 and also in Column No.12 of ExsD1 to D4, to the effect that

¶81

Sri.Chikkabalaiah has been in possession of the property. Thus, said Sri Chikkabalaiah whose name has been reflected even in the documents produced none other than by the defendants, executed a settlement deed dated 17/06/1993 in favour of his son-in-law the respondent/plaintiff, which document till date remained unchallenged. The claim of the respondent/plaintiff prima-facie over the suit schedule property has been rightly accepted by the trial court and the first appellate court. Though learned counsel for the appellants/defendants vehemently submits that the revenue entries effected the name of the plaintiff is subject matter of consideration before the Tahsildar, till date no conclusion has been arrived at in that aspect of the matter. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that even prior to the date of filing of the suit till date, the name of Sri Chikkabalaiah

¶82

¶83

and thereafter the name of plaintiff continues to be reflected in the revenue records substantiating their claims and possession over the suit schedule property supported by the settlement deed executed by Sri Chikkbalaiah in favour of plaintiff No.1. On the other hand, the appellants/defendants have not produced any evidence with regard to their right over the property or for that matter their relationship with said Smt.Narasamma. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken note of this aspect of the matter. In the light of the aforesaid material evidence and the reasoning given by the trial court and the first appellate court, no substantial question of law involves in the matter for consideration. Hence, the following.

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i) Regular Second Appeal No.1508/2015

¶86

filed by the appellants/defendants is

¶87

dismissed.

¶88

¶89

ii) The judgment and decree dated 06/01/2009 passed in OS.No.3/2003 by the trial court and the judgment and decree dated 15/06/2015 passed in RA.No.14/2009 by the first appellate are confirmed. iii) Under the above circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

¶90

Sd/JUDGE

¶91

Ru/Mkm

Sri. Narasimhaiah v. Sri. Muddamallaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Narasimhaiah v. Sri. Muddamallaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Basamma Vs Smt Kotrabasamma

Sri. Seenappa Vs Sri. K N Raju

Jagannath @ Jagadish Vs B K Rangaswamy

K v Rajesh Vs K v Ramesh

Sri K S Ananda Vs v N Devaraj

A Venkataramappa Vs Muneppa