In an appeal against a decree, the High Court dismissed the second appeal. The bench held that the plaintiff had established lawful possession via a 1979 land grant, which superseded the defendant's claim based on a subsequent grant to his brother. No substantial question of law arose.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1016 OF 2016 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATASWAMY @ VENKATASWAMY REDDY S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT BYNAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-572102.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMAIAH GOWDA L M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. B. VENKATASWAMY REDDY S/O. LATE BYRAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT KAGATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-572102.
(BY SRI.P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.26/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHINTAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 15.12.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.115/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHINTAMANI.
NC: 2023:KHC:43532 RSA No. 1016 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful defendant assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below wherein plaintiff's suit for injunction simpliciter in O.S.No.115/2007 is decreed and defendant is restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
to as per their rank before the trial Court.
The plaintiff has instituted a bare suit for injunction
in respect of property bearing Sy.No.88. The plaintiff is asserting title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff contends that the competent authority has granted suit property to his father in LND No.(M) 2911/78-79 and has issued grant certificate on 30.11.1979.
Therefore, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that his father was in exclusive possession as absolute owner since 1979 till his demise. The plaintiff has further pleaded that his father died on 27.09.2000 and he being class-I heir has inherited to the property left behind by his father. The plaintiff contends that his father was paying tax to the Government and post grant, the authority have surveyed and a rough sketch is prepared in respect of property. The present suit is filed alleging that defendant without any semblance of right and title is highhandedly interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession.
members and Government has granted the suit land namely plot Nos.10 and 11 to his brother. The defendant claimed that the land grant committee after due enquiry has granted the suit property and possession is delivered to his brother and therefore, defendant contended that he along with his brother are in possession of 1 acre and another strip of 1 acre 23 guntas in Sy.No.88.
respective claim have let in oral and documentary evidence.
original grant certificate vide Ex.P-1 held that plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating that suit property was granted to plaintiff's father. While examining the rebuttal evidence, trial Court was not inclined to take cognizance of the said document. While examining the rebuttal evidence, trial Court was of the view that the land granted
to defendant does not indicate specific boundaries. The trial Court also held that these documents on which defendant is placing reliance are Xerox copies. Taking note of Ex.P-1 which is the original grant certificate, trial Court held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving his lawful possession and interference. Consequently, suit is decreed.
appellate Court found that based on grant certificate issued to plaintiff's father, mutation was effected under Ex.P-9 which is dated 22.07.2007. The appellate Court while taking cognizance of Ex.P-10 which is the revenue sketch found that plaintiff's father is in exclusive possession of the suit property. The appellate Court held that the revenue sketch also mentions boundaries which is prepared by a competent surveyor and signed by the Tahsildar. The appellate Court referring to these documents coupled with oral evidence of PWs.2 and 3, held that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
time and the alleged grant set up by defendant in favour of his brother is subsequent grant. If these factual matrix is accepted, then this Court would find that if there is already a grant in favour of plaintiff's father way back in 1979, the authority could not have granted subsequently without recalling the grant in favour of plaintiff's father.
injunction. The findings recorded by both the Courts on issue No.1 is based on cogent and clinching evidence let in by the plaintiff.
consideration. The second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
CA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts regarding plaintiff's exclusive possession based on prior land grant warrant interference in second appeal.
Whether a subsequent grant in favour of defendant's brother could legally override the antecedent grant in favour of plaintiff's father.
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law or is devoid of merits.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. VENKATASWAMY @ VENKATASWAMY REDDY
SRI. B. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
