Allowed

Chikkadurgaiah v. P R Govardhan

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2023RFA/1337/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular First Appeal concerning title dispute over immovable property involving conflicting claims between private parties and the State/Slum Board. Court set aside lower court decree due to serious dispute over rival contentions and new documents not available earlier.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; matter remitted to trial court; State and Slum Board impleaded as additional defendants; court fee refunded.

Chikkadurgaiah Vs P R Govardhan — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1337 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHIKKADURGAIAH

¶10

S/O DURGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO 144 (NEW NO 166) 23RD E CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-85

¶11

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT SHIVALINGAMMA W/O CHIKKADURGAIAQH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.144, (OLD NO.166) 23RD E CROSS, ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560085

¶13

(BY SRI K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

P R GOVARDHAN S/O GOVANDASWAMY, (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS)

¶17

1(A) SMT ANITHA S J D/O LATE GOVARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, JACI ENCLAVE, OLD POST OFFICE ST FLAT G,

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶19

BLOCK-1, PLOT-3 KORATTUR, KORATTUR CHENNAI (M CORP) CHENNAI-600067

¶20

NAVEEN S/O LATE GOVARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.05-53/3, MAHANKALI TEMPLE, NEAR MALKAJGIRI POLICES, MALKARJGIRI, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT-500047

¶21

SMT PINNAPATI SRIKANTH SHOBHA D/O LATE GOVARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.15-83, NEW MIRZAZLGUDA, MALKAAJGIRI, HYDERABAD

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA)

¶24

¶25

RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE

¶26

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.1793/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH NO.10), PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

¶28

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2016, passed in OS No.1793/2005 by the XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH No.10), whereby the said suit filed by the respondents - plaintiffs for declaration permanent injunction and possession, etc., in relation to suit schedule immovable property was decreed in favour of the respondents - plaintiffs and against the appellants - defendants by the trial Court.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for appellant and

¶34

respondents.

¶35

Perusal of the material on record would indicate

¶36

that dispute between the parties involves immovable property bearing Site No.144, carved out of Sy. No.3 of Ittamadu Village, Uttarahalli Hobali, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring east to west 30 ft. and north to south 40 ft. as described in the schedule to the plaint.

¶37

When the matter was posted on 26.07.2023 this Court noticed the rival contention and passed the following interim order:

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶40

"ORDER

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶42

The suit is one for declaration of title and possession. The suit is filed in respect of the property bearing site No.144 in Sy.No.3 of Ittamadu village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, as per the plaint schedule, the property measuring east-west 30 feet and north-south 40 feet. Suit is resisted by the defendant No.2/appellant No.2 on the premise that this property is granted to defendant No.2/appellant No.2 by the Slum Board in the year 2011 i.e., during the pendency of the suit.

¶43

This Court has perused Ex.P-10 the grant order in favour of the plaintiff. This Court has also perused Ex.D-6 and Ex.D-7 and D-30 which are endorsements issued by the jurisdictional Tahasildar. Ex.D6 reveals that Ex.P-10 is concocted. However, to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P-21 which reveals that Ex.D-6 is concocted. Ex.D-7 is one more document alleged to have been issued by the jurisdictional Tahasildar which reveals that Ex.P-10 is not issued in favour of the plaintiff. At the same time, Ex.D-30 reveals that the records pertaining to the alleged land in favour of the plaintiff is not forthcoming in the records.

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶45

In the light of the rival contentions raised before this Court, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the jurisdictional Tahasildar to produce original records pertaining to grant of site No.144 in Sy.No.3 of Ittamadu village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

¶46

Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Shivananda D.S., is directed to secure original records pertaining to the aforementioned properties.

¶47

List this matter on 11.08.2023.

¶48

Registry to show the name of Sri.Shivananda D.S., Additional Government Advocate in the causelist.

¶49

Registry to furnish the copy of this order to Sri.Shivananda D.S., Additional Government Advocate.

¶50

The matter is released from part-heard."

¶51

Subsequently, on 29.08.2023, learned AGA filed a

¶52

memo with documents in respect of suit property, pursuant to the original records already submitted by them. The said documents were taken on record and on 08.09.2023, this Court noted the submissions made by the learned AGA and the Revenue Inspector on behalf of Tahsildar, who is present before the Court and passed the following order:

¶53

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶54

"Learned Additional Government Pleader Sri Spoorthy Hegade submits that the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South was directed to produce the records. The officer of the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South is present and submits no such documents are available and he is ready to file necessary affidavit in that regard.

¶55

Re-list this matter on 13.09.2023."

¶56

In pursuance of the same, the Tahsildar has filed an affidavit along with four documents on 12.10.2023. The said affidavit reads as under:

¶57

"AFFIDAVIT

¶58

I, Sreenivasa H, S/o. Harala Naik, aged about 48 years, working as Tahsildar (Grade-I), Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru City, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I state that I am working as Tahsildar (Grade-I), Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru City and I am well conversant with the facts of the case and hence, I am swearing to this affidavit on the basis of documents available with our office.

¶59

I state that as per Akarband, the land bearing Sy.No.3 of Ittamadu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring to an extent of 14 Acres 20 Guntas. Out of which 5 Acres 32

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶62

Guntas, 2 Acres 10 Guntas of land having Khata standing in the name of B. Kempaiah. 1 Acre 13 Guntas of land having khatha standing in the name of Munichowdappa and 2 Acres 09 Guntas of land having khatha standing in the name of G. Ramaiah S/o Giriyappa.

¶63

I further state that in the said land, 4 Acres 37 Guntas has been granted to the Slum Clearance and Development Board by the Deputy Commissioner vide Notification bearing No.KSA.CR.7/99-2000 dated 26.03.2001. Copy of the Notification 26.03.2001 is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.1.

¶64

I further state that in the said 4 Acres 37 Guntas of land, the concerned Authority has carved out 308 sites for the identified beneficiaries who were resided in the said place and allotted the said land to them. Copy of the Beneficiaries list is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.2.

¶65

I state that the after verification of the records at our office in the record Section, it is found that the Hakku Pathra produced by the Appellant pertaining to grant of Respondent Site No.144 in Sy.No.3 of Ittamadu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, has not been issued from our Office. The record keeper has submitted the said report through Grade-II Tahsildar. Copy of

¶66

¶67

NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶68

the report dated 22.09.2023 is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.3.

¶69

I state that as per Akarbandh, in the RTC Coumn (3) and (9) extent is more than the Akarbandh extent, which has to be rectified by the Special Tahsildar and the letter dater 03.10.2023 has been issued to rectify the RTC Column (3) and (9) extent. Copy of the letter dated 03.10.2023 same is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.4.

¶70

I state that in the said land, as per Akarbandh, out of total extent of 14 Acres 20 Guntas of land, 04 Acres 37 Guntas has been allotted to the Slum Clearance Development Board and 5 Acres 32 Guntas having khatas in the name of private parties as stated above, as per Deputy Tahasildar, Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officers report physically remaining 3 Acres 31 Guntas of land is fully developed by the residential houses and no vacant land has been left out.

¶71

What is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief."

¶72

By way of response to the said affidavit and

¶73

documents filed by the State, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit along with one document on 21.11.2023,

¶74

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶75

controverting and disputing the affidavit and documents filed on behalf of State.

¶76

The learned counsel for appellants on instruction submits that an appellant does not dispute the affidavit and documents produced by the State. The said submission of the learned counsel for appellants is placed on record.

¶77

The aforesaid facts and circumstances and material on record will indicate that the documents and pleadings, referred to supra, filed for the first time before this Court in the present appeal were not placed / available before the trial Court before passing of the impugned judgment and decree. It is also seen that there is serious dispute between the appellant and State on hand and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the other, as regards their respective rival contentions and documents produced by both the side.

¶78

Under these circumstances, though several contentions are urged by both sides in support of their claim, without expressing any opinion on the merit / demerits of the rival contentions and in the light of the aforesaid earlier orders passed by this Court and subsequent events that have

¶79

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶80

transpired / occurred during the pendency of the appeal and the additional pleadings and the documents produced by the parties as well as State before this Court during the pendency of the present appeal, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the mater back to the trial Court for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all the parties and by impleading the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board as well as the Tahasildar, State of Karnataka as additional defendants to the suit.

¶81

In the result, appeal is hereby allowed with the following:

¶82

(1) The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2016, passed in OS No.1793/2005 by the XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH No.10), is hereby set aside.;

¶83

(2) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.;

¶84

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶85

(3) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - plaintiffs are directed to implead the State of Karnataka, represented by Tahasildar as well as Karnataka Slum Clearance Board

¶86

as additional defendants to the suit by filing appropriate application in this regard before the trial Court.;

¶87

(4) On such application being filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - plaintiffs for impleading, the trial Court shall permit such impleadment and consequently implead State of Karnataka, represented by Tahasildar as well as Karnataka Slum Clearance Board as additional defendants to the suit and issue Court notice / suit summons to the additional impleaded defendants and proceed further with the matter.;

¶88

(5) Appellant - defendant and respondent Nos.1 to 3 undertake to appear before the trial Court on 08.01.2024 without awaiting further notice from the trial Court.;

¶89

(6) Liberty is reserved in favour of both sides to file additional pleadings as well as adduce additional oral

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2023:KHC:42755 RFA No. 1337 of 2016

¶92

and documentary evidence in support of their

¶93

respective claim.;

¶94

(7) Registry is directed to re-transmit the entire trial Court records back to the trial Court for consideration in accordance with law.;

¶95

(8) So also, the Registry of this Court is directed to transmit the entire file comprising of records produced by the State of Karnataka along with memo dated 29.08.2023, by placing the same in a sealed cover and transmit the same to the trial Court forthwith without any delay.

¶96

(9) Registry is also directed to refund the entire (100%) Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal back to the appellant in terms of Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1978.

¶97

Sd/JUDGE

¶98

VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Chikkadurgaiah v. P R Govardhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chikkadurgaiah v. P R Govardhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.G.Ramu Vs Smt. K.M. Shakunthala

Sri S Subramaniam Vs Sri George Alexander Muthoot

Smt. Divya Darshini Vs Prakash. B

Sri.a.Munishamy Reddy Vs M.Ramaiah

Smt. Yashodha Vs Smt. Rashmi. J

Sri Ramesh Vs Smt Gowramma