Remanded

R Krishna Murthy v. Sri Doddanarayana Reddy

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2023RFA/925/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular first appeal regarding a suit for declaration and injunction over inam land, the High Court held that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order granting occupancy rights to defendants, produced for the first time before this Court, necessitated a rehearing. The court remitted the matter to the trial court to decide afresh after giving parties an opportunity to adduce evidence regarding

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed; judgment and decree in O.S. No. 213 of 1998 set aside; matter remitted to trial court to be decided afresh after giving parties opportunity to adduce evidence.

R Krishna Murthy Vs Sri Doddanarayana Reddy — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 925 OF 2006 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R KRISHNA MURTHY

¶9

SINCE DEAD BY LR’S

¶10

(a) K. SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶11

(b) K SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶12

¶13

(d) K BHANU MURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by C MALATHI

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

(e) K RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶17

1(a) TO (e) ARE R/A NO.475 KRISHNARAJAPURAM BANGALORE 560036.

¶18

B R NAGABUSHNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE RAMA SHASTRY R/A NO.475, KRISHNARAJAPURAM BANGALORE 560036.

¶19

SUBBARAMA SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS S/O LATE RAMA SHASTRY

¶20

¶21

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶22

R/A BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 068. …APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY SRI. C M NAGABUSHANA.,ADVOCATE AND SRI. P.V. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE )

¶24

AND:

¶25

SRI DODDANARAYANA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S

¶26

(a) SMT. KRISHNAMMA W/O LATE DODDANARAYANA REDDY

¶27

AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶28

(b) SRI. N SRINIVASAREDDY S/O LATE DODDANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶29

R1 (a) & (b) AR R/AT NO.24, 2^ND CROSS 3^RD BLOCK, VISHVAPRIYANAGAR

¶30

BENGALURU-560 068.

¶31

¶32

THALIKOTHANUR

¶33

KRISHNAGIRI, TAMILNADU-635118

¶34

(d) SMT. MANJULA

¶35

D/O LATE DODDANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶36

R/A NO. E190, NAGARAJAREDDY BUILDING NEAR SRI RAMA TEMPLE

¶37

HEBBHAGODI

¶38

BENGALURU-560 099.

¶39

(e) SRI N RAMAREDDY S/O LATE DODDANARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶40

¶41

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶42

R/A NO.160 5^TH CROSS 1^ST BLOCK, VISHVAPRIYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 068

¶43

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY

¶44

MULTI STORIED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001.

¶45

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK K.G.ROAD,BANGALORE-560 009 …RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. M.S VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1(a - e)[ABSENT]: SMT. H.R. ANITHA, HCGP, FOR R2 & R3)

¶47

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:11.8.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.213/98 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶48

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

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.3 to 5 under

¶51

Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2005 in O.S.No.213/1998 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction has been decreed.

¶52

¶53

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶54

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶55

referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

¶56

The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule land was an inam land endowed to Nageshwara temple of Begur village. The plaintiff was cultivating the land as a tenant on ‘WARA’ basis and he was paying ‘WARA’ to the Archaka – Subbarama Shastry. After the Inam Abolition Act came into force, the plaintiff filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, seeking occupancy rights in respect of the suit schedule property. Later, it came to be transferred to the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff by order dated 31.12.1981. Pursuant to that order, the name of the plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue records.

¶57

The further case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of the plaintiff in

¶58

¶59

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶60

the partition suit in O.S.No.79/1992. Accordingly, his

¶61

name has been mutated in the revenue records.

¶62

It is his further case that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have filed a suit against defendant No.5 for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.65/1998 in which plaintiff was not a party and the said suit ended in compromise entered in the compromise petition. The suit schedule property was allotted to the share of defendant Nos. 3 and

¶63

Based on the compromise decree, even defendant Nos.

¶64

3 and 4 are making efforts to change revenue entries in their names and they are trying to interfere into the suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction.

¶65

Inspite of service of summons, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have remained absent. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 entered through their respective counsel but they have not chosen to file written statement. Defendant No.3 filed written statement denying that they have obtained the

¶66

¶67

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶68

decree in O.S.No.65/1998 by collusion. It is further stated in the written statement that the Land Tribunal has no right to grant occupancy rights in respect of the inam land in favour of the plaintiff. It is further contended that the Land Tribunal is not the competent forum having jurisdiction upon the inam land to grant occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiff, hence the same is void. It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 16.08.1979 rejected the claim of the defendants for occupancy rights. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 05.04.1982 granted occupancy rights in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶69

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points were framed before the trial court:

¶70

¶71

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶72

“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property as alleged?

¶73

2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the decree passed in O.S.No.65/1998 on the file of this court is null and void and the same is not binding on him as alleged?

¶74

3) Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant Nos. 3 to 5 have interfered with his lawful possession over the suit properties as alleged?

¶75

4) Whether the 3^rd defendant proves that suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient?

¶76

5) Whether the 3^rd defendant further proves that himself and the 4^th defendant have acquired title to the suit property and they are in possession as alleged in para No.15 of the written statement?

¶77

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction against defendants as prayed?

¶78

¶79

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶80

7) To what relief, if any, the parties are entitled?”

¶81

To prove the case, plaintiff examined one Srinivasa Reddy as PW-1 and produced 44 documents. Respondents neither examined any witnesses nor produced any documents. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court answered issue Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 in the affirmative and 4 and 5 in the negative

¶82

and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.3 to 5 have filed this appeal.

¶83

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶84

defendants/appellants has contended that the appellants have taken a specific contention in the written statement that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights in respect of inam land and the occupancy rights granted in favour of the plaintiff is without jurisdiction. They have further taken a contention that the occupancy rights have been rejected by the Special Deputy Commissioner in favour of the defendants

¶85

¶86

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶87

is concerned, defendants have challenged the same before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 05.04.1982 granted occupancy rights in favour of the defendants. Therefore, the defendants have right and title over the suit schedule property. Therefore, he contended that the trial court, without considering this aspect of the matter has granted a decree. Hence, the same is unsustainable.

¶88

Secondly, the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has not been produced before the trial court and the defendants have not entered into the witness box. They have produced the same before this Court by filing necessary application. Therefore, he contended that it is very clear that the competent authority has granted occupancy rights in favour of the defendants. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶89

Learned HCGP appearing for the State has contended that the appellants have produced the order

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶92

passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal granting occupancy rights first time before this Court. Under these circumstances, the matter may be remitted back to the trial court to reconsider the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties.

¶93

None appeared for the plaintiff/respondent No.1.

¶94

The only point for consideration in this appeal is, “whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is erroneous, arbitrary and capricious and calls for interference of this Court?”

¶95

The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is inam land endowed to Nageshwara temple of Begur village. The plaintiff was cultivating suit schedule property as a tenant and paying ‘WARA’ to the Archaka. After the Inam Abolition Act came into force, he filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, seeking occupancy rights in respect of the suit schedule property and the same has been transferred

¶96

11 -

¶97

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶98

to the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiff by order dated 31.12.1981. In the partition suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.NO.79/1992, the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of the plaintiff, the revenue entries have been changed to the name of the plaintiff. Since the defendants are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement and contended that the tribunal is not the competent authority to grant occupancy rights in respect of the Inam land, the occupancy right granted by the Tribunal dated 31.12.1981 is without jurisdiction. It further contended that in respect of the suit schedule property, the defendants have filed an application for occupancy rights before the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Special Deputy Commissioner by order dated 30.04.1976 rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants 3 and 4 have filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in

¶99

12 -

¶100

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶101

Appeal No.246/1981. The Tribunal, by order dated 05.02.1982 granted occupancy rights in favour of the appellants/defendants. Even though defendants have taken specific contention, they have not produced the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. They have not entered the witness box to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial court, on the basis of the evidence of the plaintiff has decreed the suit. For the first time, the defendants/appellants have produced the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal before this Court by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC before this Court. Under these circumstances, to give one more opportunity to the parties, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be remitted back to the trial court to reconsider the matter afresh.

¶102

Hence, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and 11.08.2005 passed in O.S.No.213/1998 is set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the trial court, with liberty to the parties to adduce additional evidence and produce

¶103

NC: RFA No. 925 of 2006

¶104

13 -

¶105

additional documents. The trial court is directed to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and produce necessary documents, without being influenced by the observations made in this order.

¶106

All the contentions of the parties are left open.

¶107

Sd/JUDGE

¶108

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

¶109

R Krishna Murthy v. Sri Doddanarayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Krishna Murthy v. Sri Doddanarayana Reddy

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

Muniyappa Vs Muniyappa

Sri Mansukh Lal Khicha Vs the Corporation of City of Bangalore

Sri N Mohan S/O Late v. Nagappa Vs the Secretary Mudaliar Seva Sangha

Dilip Kumar Jain Vs Taffy Appliances Private Limited

Kotebagilu Karibasappa Vs Smt. Mallamma

Sri S Venugopal Vs Smt Shakunthala