Dismissed

Smt. Sharanamma W/O Bheemanagouda, v. R.P Srinivas S/O Sambashivayya

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2022RSA/200264/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Second Appeal filed by the widow of a defendant. The court upheld the lower courts' finding that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit land as the defendants failed to produce evidence of the alleged sale agreements to substantiate their possession.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; plaintiffs declared as absolute owners; possession to plaintiffs.

Smt. Sharanamma W/O Bheemanagouda, Vs R.P Srinivas… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

RSA NO.200264/2014 (DEC/POSS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SHARANAMMA W/O BHEEMANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE, R/O GILESUGUR VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: RAICHUR-584101.

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE FOR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SMT CHANDRAKALA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

R.P SRINIVAS S/O SAMBASHIVAYYA DIEAD BY LRS.

¶12

1A. SMT R.P.SHUKLADEVI W/O LATE R.P.SRINIVAS AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO.7-2-23 GASAGARPET,

¶13

RAICHUR.

¶14

1B. DEEPAK

¶15

S/O LATE R.P.SRINIVAS AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O H.NO.7-2-23

¶16

¶17

GASAGARPET, RAICHUR.

¶18

1C. ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE R.P.SRINIVAS AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O H.NO.7-2-23 GASAGARPET, RAICHUR. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.11.2022.)

¶19

R.P. ARVIND S/O R.P.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 31 OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶20

BOTH R/O GAJAGARPET, RAICHUR-584101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(R1(A) , R1(B), R1(C) AND R2 ARE SERVED)

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.06.2014 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 02/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT RAICHUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.07.2013 PASSED IN E.P.NO.05/2007 O.S. NO.84/2002 FILED U/S 21 RULE 97 OF C.P.C. BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT RAICHUR AND ALLOW I.A.NO.IV FILED U/O 21 RULE 97 OF C.P.C BY THE APPELLANT.

¶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 the widow of defendant No.3 questioning the concurrent findings of the

¶27

¶28

Courts below, wherein the suit seeking relief of possession

¶29

is decreed by both Courts.

¶30

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

¶31

as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶32

The plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration

¶33

and for consequential relief of possession. The plaintiffs claimed that they purchased the property in the year 1991. Therefore, claimed that they are the joint owners. The plaintiffs also contended that subsequent to purchase, their names were mutated to the revenue records. It is further pleaded that children of plaintiff No.1 have a right over the suit land and defendants were no way concerned to the suit land. Plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs and started asserting that they are the owners of the suit lands. Hence, the present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration and possession.

¶34

The defendants contested the proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants, however, asserted right over the suit property based on two agreements alleging that the

¶35

¶36

plaintiffs have executed an agreement on 12.08.1996 and have received the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000/ from the plaintiffs.

¶37

The plaintiffs and defendants in support their

¶38

contentions have lead in oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claims. Though defendants asserted possessory rights based on agreement, to substantiate that there is an agreement for sale not substantiated by producing any documents. Therefore, Trial Court in absence of rebuttal evidence answered issue Nos.3 and 4 in the negative. The Trial Court held that defendants have failed to prove that they are put in possession pursuant to the agreement dated 12.03.1996.

¶39

The Trial Court held that the payment under two agreements to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- and Rs.86,000/is also not proved by the defendants. On these set of reasonings, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit declaring that plaintiffs are the absolute owners. Consequently, defendants were to hand over the possession to the plaintiff.

¶40

¶41

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, widow of defendant No.4 filed an appeal. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence has concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. These concurrent judgments are under challenge by the widow of defendant No.4.

¶42

Heard learned counsel appearing for the defendants and perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

¶43

The plaintiffs suit is resisted by the defendants alleging that the plaintiffs have executed two agreements on 12.03.1996 by receiving an amount of Rs.1,70,000/and Rs.86,000/- and therefore, they contended that they are in lawful possession based on agreements. Having taken a specific defence asserting that there are two agreements executed by the plaintiffs, it was incumbent on the part of the defendants to produce those agreements and substantiate their possession over the property in question. The fact that the defendants are asserting right under agreement executed by the plaintiffs pre-supposes

¶44

¶45

that title of the plaintiffs is admitted by the defendants. Therefore, in absence of rebuttal evidence, both Courts were justified in declaring that the plaintiffs are absolute owners. If defendants have no semblance of right over the suit properties, the plaintiffs being the absolute owners are entitled to recover possession.

¶46

It is also borne out from the records that the defendants tried to resist the execution proceedings by filing the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. The said application is also rejected. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiffs have executed the decree and possession is delivered to the plaintiffs and execution petition is closed as fully satisfied.

¶47

In the light of the foregoing reasons, I do not find

¶48

any substantial question of law involved in the case.

¶49

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

NBM

Smt. Sharanamma W/O Bheemanagouda, v. R.P Srinivas S/O Sambashivayya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharanamma W/O Bheemanagouda, v. R.P Srinivas S/O Sambashivayya

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

Mohd Mujeeb Ahmed Khan S/O Abdul Fateh Khan Vs Mohd Fazalur Rahman S/O Md. Abdul Rahman and Anr.

Annappa S/O Siddappa Mustapure Vs Bhimanna S/O Masthanappa Hosahalli and Ors.

Annappa S/O Siddappa Mustapure Vs Bhimanna S/O Masthanappa Hosahalli and Ors.

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.