Dismissed

Sri S.K. Chikkanna v. Sri S.K. Lakshmaiah

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2022RSA/1739/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This regular second appeal against a lower court decree dismissing a suit for declaration of title and injunction was dismissed. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact that the appellants failed to prove their lineage connection to the deceased ancestor and possession of the land, while the respondents were established as the nearest legal heirs. No substantial question of law arose

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal No.1739/2013 dismissed; judgment and decree of lower courts confirmed.

Sri S.K. Chikkanna Vs Sri S.K. Lakshmaiah — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

¶6

R.S.A.NO.1739 OF 2013(DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S.K. CHIKKANNA S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶9

SRI. S.K. RANGANATHAIAH S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶10

SRI. S.K. LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶11

SRI. S.K. SRINIVASA S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶12

SRI. S.K. DHANANJAYA S/O LATE S.C. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT SARASWATHIPURA VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI KADUR TALUK -577 549 CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶14

… APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. S.K. LAKSHMAIAH S/O S.B. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶19

SRI. S.K. PADMANABHA S/O S.B. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶20

ALL ARE R/AT SARASWATHIPURA VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI KADUR TALUK – 577 548 CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S.V. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND 2)

¶23

THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.08.2013 PASSED IN R.A. NO.73/2009 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED:09.07.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.14/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE(SR. DN.) AND JMFC, KADUR.

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The present regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the concurrent findings and conclusions rendered in the judgment and decree dated 09/07/2009 passed in OS.No.14/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadur (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and the

¶27

¶28

judgment and decree dated 03/08/2013 passed in RA.No.73/2009 on the file of the 1^st Additional District Judge, Chikmagalur (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court').

¶29

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the trial court.

¶30

The plaintiffs filed the above suit for declaration that they are the legal representatives of deceased Rangaiah and to declare that they are the absolute owners in possession of plaint schedule property bearing Sy.No.24 measuring 9 acres 35 guntas being the legal representatives of said deceased Rangaiah and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Balappa had three sons and

¶31

a daughter by name Krishnappa, Chikkanna, Dodda Hanumaiah and Rangamma. Except Chikkanna, other children of Balappa died issueless. That the said Chikkanna had three sons and two daughters, namely, 1) Rangaiah 2) Lakshmaiah 3) Krishnappa 4)

¶32

¶33

Thimmamma and 5) Balamma. That the plaintiffs are the children of Krishnappa. That the plaint schedule property belonged to Rangaiah @ Ranga who is the elder brother of the father of the plaintiff. The said Rangaiah had died as a bachelor. As such, property had devolved upon the father of the plaintiff namely S.C.Krishnappa as he was only the legal heir. That the plaint schedule property had been forfeited to the Government for nonpayment of Kandayam. That in the year 1957 father of the plaintiff had made an application before the Revenue

¶34

Authority for restoration of property in his name. That the defendants are the natives of Kachapur Village and they are not concerned with the family of Rangaiah @ Ranga. The original ancestor of the defendants is one Krishnappa S/o Balananjappa and the defendants taking undue advantage of similarity in the names in the pedigree of the plaintiff and defendants are making claims over the suit schedule property. The defendnats

¶35

had no right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. However, they had filed a petition before the

¶36

¶37

Revenue Authority seeking restoration of the suit schedule property in their names. There was a revenue dispute and the matter was taken before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in revision petition No.122/2002. The Tribunal had directed the parties to approach the civil court establishing their right and title. As such, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for declaration and injunction.

¶38

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their

¶39

counsel. Defendant No.2 filed written statement which was adopted by defendant No.1. It is contended by the defendants that the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor possessors of the suit schedule property as they are not descendants of Rangaiah @ Ranga. That the genealogy furnished by the plaintiff is incorrect. The relationship of father of the plaintiff with that of Rangaiah and claim of plaintiff that father of plaintiff making an application before the Revenue Authority seeking restoration of the land also denied. It is specifically contended by the

¶40

¶41

defendants that land bearing Sy.No.24 measuring 9 acres 35 guntas of Kannenahally village is the ancestral property of defendants, which was owned by Rangappa S/o Chikkanna. The said Chikkanna was the propositor of the defendant’s family who had three sons by name Rangappa, Lakshmaiah and Kenchabalaiah. Rangappa being eldest member had inherited the property, who died unmarried. Thereafter, the property continued to be in the possession of Lakshmaiah and Kenchabalaiah. Kenchabalaiah had one son by name Balanajappa, who has got three sons by name S.B.Kenchabalaiah, S.B.Krishnappa and Lakshmaiah, the said S.B.Krishnappa had 2 sons who are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in this case, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property measuring 9 acres 35 guntas. That they have submitted the application to the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere for restoring the katha in their names to which the plaintiffs had filed objections. The defendants preferred appeal in RA.No.24/1992-93 before the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, who had

¶42

¶43

directed to enter the names of defendants to the land by order dated 13/02/1995. The plaintiffs had preferred writ petition in W.P.No.32150/1997, in which the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal. The Deputy Commissioner, once again had directed to enter the names of the defendants. Meanwhile, the Tahsildar, Kadur and Revenue Inspector had visited the suit property and had confirmed the defendants were cultivating the suit schedule property and were in possession of 7 acres 35 guntas and remaining 2 acres is in possession of some other person. That the plaintiffs though they are not the legal representatives of Rangapa, taking undue advantage of similarity in the name of Krishnappa had filed the suit. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶44

The Trial Court based on the pleadings framed

¶45

the following issues:

¶46

i. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, suit schedule property Sy.No.24, measuring 9 acres 35 guntas situated at Kannenahally village,

¶47

¶48

Birur Hobli, was owned by Rangaiah @ Ranga?

¶49

ii. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, Rangaiah @ Ranga is the elder brother of father of plaintiff and after the death of Ranga, property has devolved on the younger brother S.C.Krishnappa and thereafter plaintiff has inherited the schedule property being legal heir of S.C.Krishnappa and is in possession of the land?

¶50

iii. Whether the defendants prove that, the suit schedule land was their ancestral property and stood in the name of Rangaiah @ Ranga S/o Ranga S/o Chikkanna?

¶51

iv. Whether the defendants further prove that, the properties are inherited by the family members and defendants No.1 and 2 are in possession?

¶52

v. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of declaration and injunction?

¶53

¶54

vi. What decree or order?

¶55

The trial court recorded the evidence and by its judgment and decree dated 09/07/2009, dismissed the suit inter alia holding that the plaintiffs had not produced any material evidence establishing their relationship with Rangaiah @ Ranga and also failed to prove that they had inherited property of Rangaiah. That the revenue records produced by the plaintiffs and defendants though reflecting the name of Ranga, the plaintiffs had not produced any material evidence to corroborate their relationship with said Ranga and that the plaintiffs have also not produced any evidence regarding they being possessors and cultivators of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the trial court has taken note of the fact that the defendants have examined 4 witnesses as DWs.2 to 5 the owners of land adjacent to the suit schedule property, who have categorically deposed that the defendants were cultivating the land since 35-40 years. On the contrary, the plaintiffs had not produced any materials to prove

¶56

¶57

their possession over the suit schedule property. The trial court, taking note of the contentions raised by the defendants and also document at Ex.D2 and the material evidence namely that of DWs.2 to 5 regarding possession of the property by the defendants has accepted the plea of the defendants.

¶58

The aforesaid facts and circumstances and reasoning given by the trial court has been accepted and confirmed by the first appellate court. The First Appellate Court at Para 19 of its Judgment, has held as under:

¶59

19. While passing the order by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, in R.A.No.24/1992-93 dt:13.02.1995 clearly held that, the defendants are the nearest legal heir to Ranga @ Rangappa. Again the said finding has been reiterated in the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 09.09.1997, holding that the defendants are the nearest legal heirs to the deceased Ranga and father of the defendants by name Krishnappa was the nearest legal heir of Ranga @ Rangappa. Infact the revenue Inspector and Village Accountant have collected statement of witnesses, mahazar, at the time of conducting measurement of the land, for that (1) Shekharappa (2) Ramachandrappa (3) Veerabhadrappa (4) Dasegowda and others have subscribed their signature to the mahazar dt:22.07.1995. In fact Dw.2 to 5

¶60

¶61

who are no way interested in the property have clearly stated that, the defendants are the nearest legal heirs of propositus Ranga. In this behalf, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the parties and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, it is not proper to interfere with the findings given by the trial Court.”

¶62

Since the courts below have come to categoric conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to establish their relationship/connection with Rangaiah @ Ranga and also their possession over the suit schedule property and further held defendants to be the nearest legal heirs to deceased Rangaiah, the plaintiffs would not be entitled for the relief of declaration and hence, dismissed the aforesaid regular appeals.

¶63

Since the plaintiffs have not established their relationship with their purported ancestors in the manner known to law without which their claim over the property cannot be entertained, no infirmity or illegality can be found with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the first appellate court and as such, no

¶64

¶65

substantial question of law arise in this matter requiring consideration. In the result, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) Regular Second Appeal No.1739/2013 filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed.

¶68

ii) The Judgment and Secree dated 09/07/2009 passed in OS.No.14/2007 by the trial court and Judgment and Decree dated 03/08/2013 passed in RA.No.73/2009 by the first appellate court are confirmed.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

MKM

Sri S.K. Chikkanna v. Sri S.K. Lakshmaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S.K. Chikkanna v. Sri S.K. Lakshmaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariyappa Dead by Lrs Vs Sri Dasappa

Smt Geeta Dwarakanath Vs K N Rajendrakumar

Smt Hemavathi Vs Smt Saraswathi

Sri. Gurumallegowda Vs Sri. Nanjaiah

Shri U G Sreenivasa Rao S/O Shri Ganapathi Shet Vs Shri N Malathesh S/O Rudrappa

Sri Narasimhappa Vs Sri Chikkanarasimhappa