Allowed

Sri Byrareddy v. Sri Kempareddy

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2022WP/3091/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought to quash an appellate order reversing a trial court's status-quo direction. The High Court held the appellate court's finding perverse as prima facie possession was established via revenue records and a compromise decree, allowing the writ petition and restoring the status quo

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the appellate order in M.A.No.5/2021 was set aside, restoring the trial court's order directing maintenance of status-quo.

Sri Byrareddy Vs Sri Kempareddy — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI BYRAREDDY S/O.LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT CHAMBAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT–562 101

¶9

… PETITIONER (BY SRI K.N.NITISH FOR SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI KEMPAREDDY S/O.LATE SHETTAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT CHAMBAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT–562 101

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2022 PASSED IN M.A.NO.5/2021 BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPURA AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court wherein the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the order passed on IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶19

The petitioner/plaintiff has instituted a suit for injunction simpliciter. The petitioner/plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property measuring 0-17 guntas in Sy.No.140/4, which totally measures 0-34 guntas. The petitioner claims that the suit property is ancestral property of the petitioner’s family. It is further specifically pleaded that the present suit schedule property was subject matter of partition suit filed by the petitioner’s family in O.S.No.159/2014 which ended in compromise and in terms of compromise, the present suit schedule property was allotted to the share of the

¶20

¶21

plaintiff to an extent of 0-17 guntas. The plaintiff claims that he has dug borwell and has a rose garden.

¶22

The present suit is filed by specifically alleging that defendant without any specific right and title has tried to damage borewell, pipe line and also rose garden with the aid of the ill-wishers. Therefore, the present appeal is filed and an application also came to be filed in IA.No.1 seeking interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The said application was strongly resisted by the defendant. The trial Court having examined prima facie material has come to conclusion that both the parties have failed to establish their possession in terms of prima facie material and the learned Judge was of the view that since both the parties are asserting possessory rights over the suit schedule property, the Court of first instance thought it fit to direct the parties to maintain status-quo.

¶23

The said order was taken in appeal in M.A.No.5/2021 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate

¶24

¶25

Court has allowed the appeal and reversed the said order

¶26

of the trial Court. While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Court was of the view that the petitioner/plaintiff has not produced a single document to demonstrate that he is in possession. The Appellate Court has also drawn adverse inference against plaintiff on the ground that even tax paid receipts and revenue documents are not produced. On these sets of reasoning, the appeal came to be allowed and the order passed on IA.No.1 came to be set aside.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel for respondent/defendant.

¶28

Perused the order under challenge.

¶29

The plaintiff to demonstrate his possession, has produced a copy of mortgage, Encumbrance Certificate, xerox copy of RTC extracts, photos as well as CD. These prima facie materials are countered by

¶30

¶31

respondent/defendant by placing on record a xerox copy of proforma bill.

¶32

I have given my anxious consideration to the prima facie materials placed on record. The petitioner has produced the Record of Rights and the name of petitioner’s father is found in the ownership column as well as in the cultivator’s column since 1982. Coupled with Record of Rights, the petitioner has also placed on record a compromise decree passed in the partition suit filed in O.S.No.159/2014. He has also produced photographs and copy of acknowledgment indicating that a complaint was lodged after disposal of miscellaneous appeal, which is produced at Annexure-M. These prima facie materials is countered by respondent/defendant by producing one bill. Respondent/defendant claims that suit schedule property is ancestral property of defendant. At this juncture, no documents are produced by respondent/defendant which would outweigh the prima facie material produced by petitioner/plaintiff. It is in

¶33

¶34

this background, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a prima facie case. Balance of convenience also leans in favour of petitioner/plaintiff. If the petitioner’s ancestors names are duly mutated in the revenue records and same are in existence since 1982 till filing of the suit and if the other documents prima facie indicates that the petitioner is enjoying the possessory rights over the suit schedule property which has to be tested by way of a full fledged trial, the order passed by the learned judge directing the parties to maintain status quo would not have been varied or rather reversed by Appellate Court by invoking the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC.

¶35

It is more than trite that the Appellate Court

¶36

should not venture into interfering with discretion exercised by the trial Court while considering interim applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Merely because, a different view is possible, that itself cannot be a ground to interfere with the discretion

¶37

¶38

exercised by the trial Court. It is also trite law that the Appellate Court can interfere provided the order under challenge passed by the learned Judge suffers from perversity.

¶39

On perusal of the order under challenge, this Court would find that the Appellate Court at para-10 has observed that not a single document is produced by petitioner/plaintiff to indicate that he is in possession. This finding prima facie is perverse and contrary to prima facie material which is placed on record by the petitioner/plaintiff. Though revenue records are not titled documents, but the said revenue records issued by the competent authority at an undisputed point of time have got presumptive value. The Record of Rights relate back to the year 1980-82. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Appellate Court at para-10 is contrary to prima facie material placed on record by the plaintiff/petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is not at all sustainable.

¶40

¶41

Hence, same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶44

ii) The order passed by the Appellate Court in MA.No.5/2021 is set aside. The order of the learned Judge directing the parties to maintain status-quo shall be in operation till disposal of the suit;

¶45

iii) The observations made by the trial Court, Appellate Court and by this Court would not come in the way of respondent/defendant and would not affect his defence during trial;

¶46

iv) All contentions are kept open;

¶47

IA.No.2/2022 does not survive for consideration

¶48

and accordingly, it stands rejected.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sri Byrareddy v. Sri Kempareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Byrareddy v. Sri Kempareddy

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

Gurumallesha Vs Parvathamma

M/S Sree Seshachala Builders Limited Vs M/S Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. H. Mallikarjunappa Vs Sri. Nagaraj N. C.

Jayantha Pai S Vs Prerana Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Devendra Vs Smt Vinodamma

sri.k.krishnappa Vs Sri.P.Jayaram