Allowed

Sri Venkataramana Devara Temple v. Dakshina Kannada Zilla

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023RSA/1253/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's order that dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The High Court held that in a suit for bare injunction, the court cannot decide title, rely solely on stray witness sentences, or ignore final judgments from related suits establishing possession. The trial Court's order granting injunction was restored.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was allowed, the First Appellate Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial Court's decree granting a permanent injunction was restored.

Sri Venkataramana Devara Temple Vs Dakshina Kannada… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

RSA No.1253/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1253 OF 2015 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI VENKATARAMANA DEVARA TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEES

¶10

1 . M PADMANABHA PAI, S/O LATE M S PAI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶11

2 . ADIGE BALAKRISHNA SHENOY S/O LATE A. DAMODAR SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶12

3 . K. JAYARAJ PAI S/O LATE K. VISHWANATH PAI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT SRI VENKATARAMANA DEVARA TEMPLE CAR STREET, MANGALORE 575001

¶14

...APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K, ADVOCATE)

RSA No.1253/2015

AND:

DAKSHINA KANNADA ZILLA MADIVALARA SANGHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NARAYANA ELECTRICALS, OPP.CLOCK TOWER, MANGALORE 575001

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. B. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2015 PASSED IN R.A. NO.114/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MAGALORE, D.K., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2000 PASSED IN O.S. NO.1101/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) MANGALORE, D.K.

¶23

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.09.2023 , COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 passed in R.A.No.114/2000 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, DK.

¶26

RSA No.1253/2015

¶27

¶28

For the sake of convenience, parties are

¶29

referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are the plaintiffs and respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.1101/1993.

¶30

The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:

¶31

The plaintiffs filed two suits i.e.,

¶32

O.S.No.860/1993 against the State of Karnataka and the Corporation of the City of Mangalore for the relief of permanent injunction and O.S.No.1101/1993

¶33

against the present respondent. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the properties of the temple is situated at Karangalpady of Kodialbail Village, Mangalore City, comprising 7 cents in T.S.Nos.145 and 146. The suit properties contained a small tank and a big tank and they were used for raising paddy crop. After deity was taken in a procession on a palanquin to the schedule property, the members of the Gowda Saraswath

¶34

RSA No.1253/2015

¶35

¶36

Brahmin Community were offering arathi to the deity. The temple has been in possession of the land in question since 1864. There has been number of correspondence between the Revenue officials and Commissioner, Mangalore Municipality that the suit property belongs to the temple. Based on a mistaken entry that the land is a poramboke land, a sanction was made by the Government to place the lands for locating Dhobikhana, though it was never used as Dhobhi Ghat. When the Madiwalara Sangha highhandedly tried to tresspass on the land, the present suit was filed in O.S.No.1101/1993 for a decree of permanent injunction. Further, the plaintiffs have also filed a suit in O.S.No.860/1993 against the State and Corporation of the City of Mangalore.

¶37

Defendant filed written statement contending

¶38

that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is false and frivolous. The plaintiffs being a temple should not

¶39

RSA No.1253/2015

¶40

¶41

have resorted to file a suit on false and untenable contentions. The plaintiffs' attempt is to deprive the legitimate right of the members of the defendant Sangha to locate the "Dhobikhana", for which the members of defendant - Sangha have been fighting. It is contended that in the suit schedule properties there is one big tank and another small tank and according to the members of Madivala Community who are the members of defendant – Sangha, the defendant's community were using those tanks for washing cloths since ancient times. The Trustees of the temple are fully aware of this fact. It is contended that the plaintiffs own and enjoy landed property comprised in Sy.No.144 of Kodialbail Village which is adjacent to the suit property. It is contended that the plaintiffs are not in possession of land bearing Sy.No.145. It is denied that entry relating to T.S.Nos.145 and 146 are poramboke lands in the revenue records. It is

¶42

RSA No.1253/2015

¶43

¶44

contended that Trustee of the plaintiff - Temple have played a mischief with the officials of the Municipality to change the reservation for order to be made insofar as T.S.Nos.145 and 146 and prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶45

The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

¶46

In O.S.No.860/1993 :

¶47

1. Whether the plaintiff proves lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property?

¶48

2. Whether the plaintiff proves any interference by defendant in the suit property?

¶49

3. Whether defendant proves Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?

¶50

4. Whether defendant proves suit is not maintainable under the provisions of law?

¶51

5. Whether defendant proves suit is bad for mis-joinder of party?

¶52

RSA No.1253/2015

¶53

¶54

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for injunction as sought?

¶55

7. What decree or order?

¶56

In O.S.No.1101/1993 :

¶57

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that it is the owner and is in actual present possession of the suit schedule property on the date of the suit as alleged in the plaint?

¶58

2. Whether the plaintiff proven any interference as alleged in para 6 of the plaint?

¶59

3. What decree or order?

¶60

In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs,

¶61

P.K.Ravindra Pai was examined as PW-1 and got

¶62

marked 44 documents as Exs.P1 to P44. In support of defence of the defendant, three witnesses are examined as DW.1 to DW.3 and got marked 20 documents as Exs.D1 to D20. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the

¶63

RSA No.1253/2015

¶64

¶65

parties, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 6 in affirmative and issue Nos.3 to 5 in negative in O.S.No.860/1993 and issue Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative in O.S.No.1101/1993 and consequently, decreed the suits of the plaintiffs and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the suit schedule properties and committing trespass into the suit schedule properties and decreed the suits vide judgment dated 30.06.2000.

¶66

The defendant in O.S.No.1101/1993

¶67

aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the said suit, preferred appeal in R.A.No.114/2000 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangalore, D.K. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, has framed the following points for consideration:

¶68

RSA No.1253/2015

¶69

¶70

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? If so, further proves the alleged interference by the defendant?

¶71

2. Whether the appellant proves that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial judge is illegal, perverse and contrary to the provisions of law as well as on facts of the case, therefore, interference of this Court is necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in O.S.No.1101/1993 dated 30.06.2000 by the 4^th Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Mangalore? If so, to what extent?

¶72

3. What order?

¶73

The First Appellate Court, on re-assessment

¶74

of the oral and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in negative and point No.2 in affirmative and consequently allowed the appeal vide judgment dated

¶75

RSA No.1253/2015

¶76

10 -

¶77

27.03.2015 and set aside the judgment passed in O.S.No.1101/1993 and consequently dismissed the

¶78

suit filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.114/2000, have filed this second appeal.

¶79

This court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law :

¶80

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the First Appellate Court was justified in deciding the title in a suit for bare injunction?

¶81

2) Whether the First Appellate Court has committed an error in not considering the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.860/1993 when the trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property?

¶82

3) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court?

¶83

RSA No.1253/2015

¶84

11 -

¶85

4) What order or decree?

¶86

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶87

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits

¶88

that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties since from time immemorable and submits that the plaintiffs had also filed the suit against the Government and Corporation of the City of Mangalore in O.S.No.860/1993 and the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court committed an error in not considering the decree passed in the said suit. He further submits that the present suit and O.S.No.860/1993 were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded by the trial Court. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.860/1993 has attained finality. Further the

¶89

defendant is not in possession of the suit schedule properties as there is no dhobikhana in the suit

¶90

RSA No.1253/2015

¶91

12 -

¶92

properties. He submits that the First Appellate Court placed much reliance on the stray sentences of the witnesses to hold that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit properties. He further submits that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the records. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is perverse and arbitrary. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal.

¶93

Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submits that land is reserved for dhobikhana for the benefit of the members of Madivalara community who are incidentally the members of the defendant - sangha. He submits that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties and no documents have been produced to show that Mulageni tenant have ever surrendered possession of Mulageni which allegedly contained that

¶94

RSA No.1253/2015

¶95

13 -

¶96

tanks. He submits that the plaintiffs created the documents and filed the present suit. He further submits that the Government is likely to reconsider for grant of said land in favour of Madivalara community. He submits that by virtue of injunction order sought by the plaintiffs, the legal right of the defendant - sangha cannot be deprived. He submits that the defendant has got a better right, title and interest, than the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties which has been reserved by the Government for beneficial enjoyment of its members. The First Appellate Court considering the material on record, is justified in passing the impugned order. The judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶97

Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶98

RSA No.1253/2015

¶99

14 -

¶100

14. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION NOS.1 TO 3 : As

¶101

these questions are interlinked, they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts. The suit schedule properties comprising of 7 cents in T.S.No.145 and 27 cents in T.S.No.146 belongs to and is in possession and enjoyment of the temple as the property of the temple. The suit schedule properties contains small and big tanks together known as karangalpady tanks of the temple and used for paddy crop. As the original title deeds of the schedule properties are lost in antiquity or cannot be related to the schedule properties, as the documents prior to survey and settlement of lands under British Rule were not described by survey number. A document dated 30.05.1857 is available which is a Mulageni lease granted by Narayana Pai, trustee of the temple to one Thimmappa. The said lease refers to the property as

¶102

RSA No.1253/2015

¶103

15 -

¶104

part of No.35, Rayappa Warg, Kodialbail Village. The said property relates to the suit schedule property. The lands in T.S.Nos.145 and 146 were entered in the revenue records as poramboke lands by mistake. At the time of resettlement, the Collector of South Canara informed the Manager of the temple that action will be taken to set right the wrong entry with regard to Karangalpady tanks. The Commissioner, Mangalore Municipality called upon the trustee of the temple, as owner of the land, to construct parapet walls to the tanks and to desilt and clean the tanks. By an agreement dated 10.11.1955, the tanks were taken on lease by the Assistant Director of Fisheries,

¶105

South Canara, for the purpose of pisciculture for a period of 5 years. Subsequently, by a letter dated 09.01.1958, the Assistant Director of Fisheries surrendered the possession of the tanks to the temple. It is contended that the defendant is

¶106

RSA No.1253/2015

¶107

16 -

¶108

attempting to commit trespass into the suit schedule properties and use it as a dhobikhana high-handedly and illegally and attempted to put a fence enclosing the schedule properties. The defendant has no right over the suit schedule properties.

¶109

The defendant denied that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties and admitted that the suit properties contained one big and small tanks, which were being used by the community people for washing clothes since ancient times. It is contended that the plaintiffs got created the records and filed the present suit. The plaintiffs got examined 5 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5. PW.1 has reiterated the plaint averments and produced documents. Ex.P.1 is the Mulageni chit dated 30.05.1857, Ex.P.2 is the copy of proceedings of the Collector of South Canara, Mangalore, issued by the Commissioner Municipality dated 05.09.1949. The said

¶110

RSA No.1253/2015

¶111

17 -

¶112

Ex.P.2 discloses that the Manager of the temple was informed that action will be taken to set right the wrong entry, if any, with regard to Karangalpady tank and further there is also reference at serial No.1 in Ex.P.2 in regard to the petition submitted by the manager of the plaintiff - temple, Ex.P.3 is the communication dated 06.02.1951 addressed by Municipal Health Officer, Mangalore to the Manager of the plaintiff-temple inviting the attention of the manager and requesting to remove rank vegetation grown in Karangalpady tank, failing which, an action will be taken against the manager of the plaintiff - temple. Ex.P.6 is the lease agreement executed between the trustees of the plaintiff-temple and Assistant Director of Fisheries, South Canara, Mangalore on 10.11.1955. The said lease agreement pertains to T.S.Nos.145 and 146 of Kodialbail Village. The said lease was for a period of 5 years for the

¶113

RSA No.1253/2015

¶114

18 -

¶115

purpose of pisciculture. Ex.P7 is the endorsement issued by the Assistant Director of Fisheries which discloses that two sets of agreements were prepared and one set was handed over to the trustees of the temple and another was retained by the Assistant Director of Fisheries. Ex.P.8 is the communication addressed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries to the trustees of plaintiff-temple indicating that the Assistant Director of Fisheries are requested to terminate the lease and cancel the lease agreement dated 10.11.1955 and further requested to waive off the compensation payable to temple from the year 1955. Ex.P.9 is the communication dated 25.2.1958

¶116

addressed by the Commissioner, Mangalore Municipality, to the managing trustee of plaintiff temple, wherein the commissioner municipality admitted that Karangalpady tanks belongs to the plaintiff - temple and requested to repair and remove

¶117

RSA No.1253/2015

¶118

19 -

¶119

silt and keep it in a clean and sanitary condition. Ex.P.10 is the communication dated 14.11.1969 addressed by the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Mangalore, calling upon the trustees proposing to fill up the temple tanks which have become a breeding place for mosquitoes by dumping debris and sought for implementing the proposal. The trustee of the plaintiff-temple in reply to Ex.P.10, submitted reply contending that trustees are agreeable for filling the said tanks by dumping the debris. Ex.P.12 is the copy of notice under Section 80 of CPC issued by the trustees of the temple to the Deputy Commissioner of D.K., and office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore and Commissioner, Corporation of City of Mangalore, alleging that the trustees have an apprehension that the temple possession is in danger of being interfered with or disturbed and intimating that the plaintiffs will initiate

¶120

RSA No.1253/2015

¶121

20 -

¶122

proceedings against the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of Corporation of the City of Mangalore. Ex.P.13 is the postal acknowledgment which discloses that the Corporation Commissioner has accepted the legal notice, Exs.P.14 and 15 are the postal acknowledgements that the notice issued as per Ex.P.12 was served on the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Corporation of the City of Mangalore, Ex.P.15 is the RTC extract in respect of land bearing Sy.No.145, Ex.P.16 is the RTC extract in respect of T.S.No.146, Ex.P.17 is the sketch prepared by the survey department, Exs.P.18 to 22 are the RTC extracts in respect of Sy.No.141 which discloses in column No.9 the name of plaintiff-temple in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.141, 144, 147, 147/2, 147/3 and 148. Exs.P.23 to 25 are the RTC extract in respect of land bearing Sy.No.146, Ex.P.26 is the extract of survey and settlement register, Ex.P.27 is the copy of

¶123

RSA No.1253/2015

¶124

21 -

¶125

complaint submitted by the plaintiff - temple to the police authorities on 17.10.1993, Ex.P.28 is the endorsement issued by the police authorities for having received the complaint from the temple on 17.10.1993 in respect of T.S.Nos.145 and 146, Ex.P.29 is the agreement, Ex.P.30 is the registered agreement executed on 08.06.1938, Ex.P.30A is the true copy of Ex.P.30, Ex.P.31 is the communication addressed by the Commissioner to the Manager of the plaintiff-temple dated 24.01.1953, intimating that resolution was passed on 10.05.1953 and resolved to request the manager of plaintiff-temple to keep the tanks area clean and proposal to surrender the tanks to the Municipality was not accepted by the Department, Ex.P.32 is the letter addressed by the Municipal Health Officer to the manager of the plaintiff-temple on 08.12.1950. Exs.P.33, 34 , 35, 36, 37, 38 are the letters addressed by the Municipal

¶126

RSA No.1253/2015

¶127

22 -

¶128

Health Officer, Mangalore, City Municipal calling upon the trustees/manager for removal of rank vegetation in Karangalpady tanks. Ex.P.39 is the letter addressed to the Commissioner, Mangalore Municipality, Ex.P.40 is the dittam book which discloses that expenditure of daily viniyogas, Ex.P.41 is an application submitted by the plaintiff-temple to the Commissioner dated 18.10.1993, Ex.P.42 is the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner which discloses that T.S.No.145(7 cents) and 146 (27 cents) of Kodialbail Village at the disposal of municipality for locating dhobikhana, Ex.P.43 is the sketch of village map, Ex.P.44 is the notice.

¶129

Further, the plaintiffs in order to establish the possession, examined the witnesses as PWs.2 to PW.5, they have deposed that the plaintiff temple is in possession of T.S.Nos.145 and 146 and the defendant is not in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶130

RSA No.1253/2015

¶131

23 -

¶132

Nothing has been elicited in the course of crossexamination from these witnesses. Official of the State by name Sri. Vijayendranath Shetty was examined as DW.1. He has reiterated the written statement averments filed in O.S.No.860/1993 wherein in the course of cross-examination he admits that the tanks are situated in T.S.Nos.145 and 146. He pleads ignorance that said tanks belong to the plaintiffs and he do not know to whom it belongs to. He admits that procession being led from plaintiff - temple to the suit schedule properties on Vijayadashami day, the years of corn collected in the suit schedule land is taken in the procession. DW.2 is the president of Madivalara Sangha and he has admitted that the defendant-sangha is not in possession of T.S.Nos.145 and 146. He admits that several public complaints were received by the State

¶133

RSA No.1253/2015

¶134

24 -

¶135

for changing the land use for dhobikhana in the records.

¶136

The defendant in O.S.No.1101/1993 filed

¶137

documents. Ex.D.1 is the copy of proceedings by the Government of Mysore dated 21.03.1968, wherein Government has accorded place to an extent of 34 cents out of T.S.No.146(0-07) cents and 146 (0-27) cents in favour of Mangalore Municipality, free of site value for locating dhobikhana and the grant is subject to complying the conditions, Ex.D2 is the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28.04.1962, to transfer the aforesaid lands to parambhog dhobikhana with immediate effect, Ex.D3 is the written argument submitted by the plaintiff before the Deputy Commissioner, Ex.D4 is the copy of the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated 15.04.1991 wherein the petition filed by the plaintiff-temple was dismissed. Ex.D5 and Ex.D6 are the certified copies of

¶138

RSA No.1253/2015

¶139

25 -

¶140

adangal, Ex.D7 is the copy of proceedings of Municipal Council dated 18.03.1964, disclosing that council has agreed to abide by the conditions for the disposal of suit properties for locating dhobikhana, Ex.D8 is the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner in respect of transfer of classification of lands to parambhog dhobikhana and Ex.D9 is the certified copy of the sketch map issued by the survey departments, Exs.D11 to 16 are the RTC extracts in respect of T.S.Nos.145 and 146 and Ex.D17 is an application submitted by the plaintiffs on 21.09.1985 requesting to pass orders for re-establishing warg right over lands in Sy.Nos.145 and 146 of Kodialbail villzage as the plaintiff-temple is enjoying the property since time immemorable and permitted to take up development works. Ex.D18 is the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the application of the plaintiff, Ex.D19 is the order dated 27.01.1989, passed by the

¶141

RSA No.1253/2015

¶142

26 -

¶143

Municipality of Mangalore, Ex.D20 is the proceedings by the Government permitted for change of

¶144

classification for parambhog dhobikhana.

¶145

From the perusal of the records produced

¶146

by the plaintiffs, it discloses that the documents produced by the plaintiffs came into existence during undisputed period. Further as per Ex.P6, the lease agreement in respect of T.S.Nos.145 and 146 executed by Assistant Director of Fisheries in favour of trustees of the plaintiff - temple and also from the perusal of oral and documentary evidence, it discloses that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties. Further DW.2 in his evidence has admitted that the defendant is not in possession of T.S.Nos.145 and 146 as on day. Further the trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of plaintiffs' witnesses and the documents produced, has recorded a finding

¶147

RSA No.1253/2015

¶148

27 -

¶149

that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties.

¶150

In rebuttal, the defendant has not

¶151

produced any records to establish it's possession over the suit schedule properties. Official of DW.1 has clearly admitted that there are tanks in T.S.Nos.145 and 146 and he also admitted that the procession is being led from plaintiff-temple to the suit schedule properties on Vijayadashami. The Corporation has not led any evidence. In a suit for bare injunction, the Court is required to consider the possession and interference by the defendant. The plaintiffs have proved that the trustees are in possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs also filed a suit in O.S.No.860/1993 against the State and Corporation of

¶152

the City of Mangalore. The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the plaintiffs have proved lawful possession and enjoyment over

¶153

RSA No.1253/2015

¶154

28 -

¶155

the suit schedule properties and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in O.SNos.860/1993 and 1101/1993. The defendant in O.S.No.1101/1993 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.114/2000. The State and the Corporation have not challenged the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.860/1993. The judgment passed in the aforesaid suit has attained finality. The First Appellate Court without considering the findings recorded in regard to the possession of plaintiff in O.S.No.860/1993, passed the judgment dismissing the suit in O.S.No.1101/1993. Admittedly, the properties are not yet transferred in the name of the defendant and the defendant is not in possession of the properties. Without considering the said aspect, the First Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their ownership and possession. The First Appellate Court has failed to look into the records that suit is only for

¶156

RSA No.1253/2015

¶157

29 -

¶158

bare injunction and not for the relief of declaration of title. It is well established principle of law that Court is required to consider the possession as on the date of filing of suit and alleged interference and Court cannot go into the issue of title in a suit for bare injunction. The First Appellate Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. In view of the above discussions, I answer substantial question Nos.1 and 3 in the negative and substantial question No.2 in the affirmative.

¶159

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil judge, Mangalore in R.A.No.114/2000 is set aside.

¶164

RSA No.1253/2015

¶165

30 -

¶166

The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.1101/1993 is restored.

¶167

No order as to the costs.

¶168

SD/JUDGE

¶169

SSB, SKS

Sri Venkataramana Devara Temple v. Dakshina Kannada Zilla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkataramana Devara Temple v. Dakshina Kannada Zilla

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

Karigowda Vs Smt Karagamma

Sri Naveen B J Vs the Registrar / Vice Chancellor

The Manager, Sugar Motors Vs the Manager Indusind Bank Ltd.

Maseera Naveed Vs the State of Karnataka

S Shivakumar Vs Assistant Commissioner

Sri Rajashekar N M Vs the State of Karnataka