Dismissed

Sri Uelappa v. Shivayogappa S/O Sadashiv Onkarshetti Since Deceased by His Lrs

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2022RSA/200074/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's challenge to a lower court decree dismissing his suit for declaration of title and injunction. The Court held that the appellant and his brother had legally alienated the disputed land via a registered sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Notice to the Appellate Court to confirm judgment dismissing the regular second appeal under Section 100 of CPC without referring the matter for framing a substantial question of law.

Sri Uelappa Vs Shivayogappa S/O Sadashiv Onkarshetti… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

RSA NO.200074/2022 (DEC/INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI UELAPPA S/O SIDALINGAPPA ONKARSHETTI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MAHAVEER NAGAR, INCHAGERI, TQ.INDI, DIST.VIJAYAPUR-586101.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, & SRI AJAY KUMAR A.K., ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SHIVAYOGAPPA S/O SADASHIV ONKARSHETTI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶12

SMT. DHANAWWA W/O SHIVAYOGAPPA ONKARSHETTI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O INCHAGERI, TQ.INDI, DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶13

SRI. SADAPPA S/O SHIVAYOGAPPA ONKARSHETTI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶14

¶15

R/O INCHAGERI, TQ.INDI, DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶16

SRI. PRATVI S/O SHIVAYOGAPPA ONKARSHETTI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O INCHAGERI, TQ.INDI, DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶17

POOJA D/O SHIVAYOGAPPA ONKARSHETTI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O INCHAGERI, TQ.INDI, DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶18

SUBHAS S/O SHIVAYOGAPPA ONKARSHETTI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O INCHAGERI, TQ.INDI, DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶19

CHANABASAPPA S/O ONKAREPPA ONKARSHETTY AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MAHAVEER NAGAR, INCHAGERI, TQ.INDI, DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW ABOVE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.08.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT INDI, DISMISSING WITH COST THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD- 02.11.2017 PASSED IN

¶22

¶23

O.S. NO.1/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, INDI.

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiff who has questioned the

¶27

concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below wherein plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction is dismissed by both the Courts below.

¶28

For the sake of brevity, the parties are

¶29

referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

¶30

The plaintiff has instituted the present suit

¶31

in O.S.No.1/2012 claiming title over the suit property bearing block No.109/1B/1A/1 measuring 2 acres out of 3 acres situated at Mahaveer Nagar, Hinchegeri Village. The plaintiff claimed that defendants are

¶32

¶33

nowhere concerned to the suit property and therefore, alleging that defendants are attempting to put up construction in the suit property, has filed the present suit by contending that they are the absolute owners of the suit land and therefore, alleging that defendants are interfering, sought consequential relief of injunction.

¶34

The defendants, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance through their counsel. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants have specifically disputed the plaintiff's title over the suit land measuring 2 acres out of 3 acres. Defendants, on the contrary, claimed that plaintiff Uelappa and his brother Srishail who are the owners of suit land measuring 7 acres have jointly sold one acre in land bearing No.109/1B/1A in favour of Block

¶35

¶36

Development Officer, Indi. It is further specifically contended that plaintiff and his brother have further sold 2 acres under registered sale deed dated 25.07.1997. Defendants have further contended that Gram Panchayat, Hinchegeri has converted the land into plots and the same are allotted to the poor people of Hinchegeri. On these set of grounds, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶37

Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claim have led in oral and documentary evidence.

¶38

Trial Court having examined oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and issue No.3 was answered in the affirmative. The Trial Court referring to the title documents in favour of defendants held that plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner of suit land

¶39

¶40

bearing block No.109/1B/1A/1 measuring 2 acres. While answering issue No.3 in the affirmative, Trial Court held that defendants have succeeded in establishing that plaintiff and his brother have alienated 2 acres of land to the Block Development Officer in the name of Governor and have accordingly received compensation for having parted 2 acres of ancestral land held by them. Based on these set of reasonings, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit.

¶41

The Appellate Court being final fact finding

¶42

authority has reassessed the entire evidence on record. Appellate Court also referring to the title documents vide Ex.D-1 also held that plaintiff having parted 2 acres of land by executing sale deed along with his brother cannot assert title and possession over the suit land measuring 2 acres. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.

¶43

¶44

8. These concurrent findings are under

¶45

challenge.

¶46

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶47

the plaintiff. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

¶48

Plaintiff has instituted the present suit asserting title in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.109/1B/1A/1. The defendants by way of rebuttal evidence have produced the sale deed vide Ex.D-1 to demonstrate that plaintiff and his brother have alienated 2 acres of land in favour of Block Development Officer. Both the Courts referring to title documents vide Ex.D-1 have rightly declined to grant relief of declaration of title in favour of plaintiff. If plaintiff and his brother have alienated 2 acres of land under registered sale deed and if the registered sale deed has remained unchallenged, then plaintiff cannot

¶49

¶50

assert title having alienated 2 acres under registered document. Both the Courts referring to title documents which are produced by way of rebuttal evidence have rightly proceeded to dismiss the suit.

¶51

No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Sri Uelappa v. Shivayogappa S/O Sadashiv Onkarshetti Since Deceased by His Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Uelappa v. Shivayogappa S/O Sadashiv Onkarshetti Since Deceased by His Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupsing S/O Lachu Alias Laxman Lamani and Anr. Vs Seenu Bai W/O Venu Naik, and Ors.

Veershetty S/O Kallappa Atiwal and Ors. Vs Sangappa S/O Madolappa Atiwaland Ors.

Sri Ramachandra S/O Balaram Shinde Vs Smt.Bhaganna S/O Shankar Narayankar and Ors.

Sri.Hanumantha and Anr. Vs Sri.Prabhakar S/O Gangappa

Sahebgouda S/O Nagaredappa Vs Rachamma W/O Sharanappa Kumanur and Anr.

Parish S/O Padmanna Khedrapur and Ors. Vs Dhyaneshwar S/O Gurupadappa Khot and Anr.