Dismissed

Sri Kullappa v. Smt Nanjamma

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2022RSA/788/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular second appeal filed by defendants challenging the permanent injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court and first appellate court findings that the land was never acquired by the government, thus invalidating the appellants' claim of possession based on purported Hakku Pathras.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 09.02.2011 in O.S.No.102/2005 and the judgment dated 03.02.2014 in R.A.No.1/2012 were confirmed.

Sri Kullappa Vs Smt Nanjamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

¶6

R.S.A.No.788 OF 2014(P-INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KULLAPPA

¶9

S/O LATE HARIDASAIAH

¶10

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

¶11

SRI. CHIKKAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS

¶12

SRI. LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE DODDARAMAIAH G/O HOMBAIAH

¶13

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶14

LAKSHMI

¶15

W/O SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶16

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT RANGANATHAPURA VILLAGE

¶18

KASABA HOBLI TALUK NARASIPURA TALUK - 571 124.

¶19

… APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA H.K., ADVOCATE(P/H)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE MULLA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/AT RANGANATHAPURA VILLAGE

¶23

¶24

KASABA HOBLI TALUK NARASIPURA TALUK - 571 124.

¶25

… RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. T.N. RAGHUPATHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)

¶27

THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2014 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 1/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIRUMAKUDALU NARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED:09.02.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.102/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, NARASIPURA.

¶28

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

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Present second appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants aggrieved by the concurrent findings and conclusions rendered in judgment and decree dated 09.02.2011 in O.S.No.102/2005 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, T.Narasipura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court) and the judgment and order dated 03.02.2014 in R.A.No.1/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, T. Narasipura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘first appellate court’).

¶31

¶32

The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.102/2005 for permanent injunction on the premise that she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property being land bearing Sy.No.62 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas situated at Ranganathapura village, Kasaba Hobli, T.Narasipura Taluk in terms of occupancy rights granted in her favour in LRF No.5738/1975-76 dated 02.06.1982. That the respondent/plaintiff was an illiterate old lady. That some people in the village had informed her that suit schedule property was acquired by the Government for the purpose of distribution of sites to some persons. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff applied to the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore for grant of compensation. The Assistant Commissioner issued endorsement dated 23.04.2006 stating that the suit schedule property had never been acquired by the Government. That the appellants/defendants apart

¶33

from spreading false information were threatening to trespass and dispossess the respondent/plaintiff from

¶34

¶35

suit schedule property. Hence, she was constrained to

¶36

file the suit for permanent injunction.

¶37

The appellants/defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5

¶38

appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It was contended by the appellants/defendants that Block Development Officer (B.D.O), T. Narasipura had issued Hakku Pathras to 24 persons in Ranganathapura village including the appellants/defendants. As such, question of dispossessing the respondent/plaintiff from the suit schedule property does not arise. That the suit schedule property was originally belonging to one late Mullashetty, the husband of the plaintiff. That the land had been acquired by the Government as per the Notification dated 20.10.1985. On taking possession of the suit schedule property, the Government had distributed 24 sites measuring 30X40 feet to various persons including appellants/defendants on 25.07.1986. Ever since that the appellants/defendants and others have been in possession of their respective

¶39

¶40

sites, Khatha was standing in their names and they were paying property tax. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶41

4. The Trial Court based on the aforesaid

¶42

pleadings framed the following issues .

¶43

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property?

¶44

Whether the plaintiff further proves that, defendants are interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property?

¶45

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as claimed?

¶46

What order or decree?"

¶47

and recorded evidence.

¶48

One Siddashetty examined himself as

¶49

PW.1 and produced 7 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P7. No oral or documentary evidence was led in on

¶50

behalf of the defendants.

¶51

Taking into consideration the evidence

¶52

adduced by the respondent/plaintiff and also the

¶53

¶54

admission made by the appellants/defendants in the written statement to the effect that husband of the respondent/plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property, and also taking note of the fact that appellants/defendants neither produced any iota of evidence nor cross-examined the plaintiff witness, the Trial Court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, against the appellants/ defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants preferred R.A.No.1/2012 before the First Appellate Court.

¶55

Based on the grounds urged in the appeal

¶56

memorandum, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration.

¶57

"1. Whether appellants/defendants prove the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is not binding on them and it warrants interference by this Court?

¶58

2. Whether appellants have made out valid and sufficient grounds to permit them to adduce additional evidence?

¶59

¶60

3. Whether the matter requires to be remanded for fresh consideration by the trial court?

¶61

4. What order or decree?"

¶62

The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation

¶63

of evidence and also taking into consideration of endorsement issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 23.04.2006 clearly stating that the land in question was not acquired, concluded that the appellants/defendants had failed to prove their contention of having obtained Hakku Pathra in their names by virtue of purported acquisition dated 18.07.1986. Though, the appellants/defendants had made an application for production of documents under order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the First Appellate Court declined to accept the same, in view of the endorsement dated 23.04.2006 issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The First Appellate Court thus came to the conclusion that in view of the aforesaid endorsement of the Assistant Commissioner of not acquiring the suit land, the very case of the

¶64

¶65

appellants/defendants being in possession of the land on the basis of Hakku Pathras which in turn were purportedly issued pursuant to the acquisition of land in question cannot be countenanced. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality or infirmity can be found with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is

¶66

dismissed.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Sri Kullappa v. Smt Nanjamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kullappa v. Smt Nanjamma

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

G.S Kadira Reddy Vs Chikka Subba Reddy

Umarabba S/O Gulam Beary Vs Smt Honnamma

Smt Halamma Vs Smt Alice Martis

Sri Subbarayappa Vs Sri Muniswamy

Smt Padma Vs Smt Devaki Subramanya

Sri Subbaraya Vs Sri Gurappa Shetty