Dismissed

Jayaramaiah v. Lalithamma

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2023RSA/1401/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed second appeal against second appeal in property suit involving permanent injunction. Court upheld trial court and first appellate court findings regarding plaintiff's possession based on mutation records and grant certificate, rejecting defendants' lack of documentary proof.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; earlier orders of dismissal of first appeal and trial court decree affirmed.

Jayaramaiah Vs Lalithamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1401 OF 2014 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JAYARAMAIAH S/O GANGADHARAIAH AGED 41 YEARS

¶9

RAJU S/O GANGADHARAIAH AGED 36 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI C.N HALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR MURTHY RAJASHRI SRI. SHRIHARI K, ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

¶13

LALITHAMMA W/O H.D. BHEMMANNA AGED 81 YEARS CAR STREET FIRST DIVISION C.N. HALLI TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. M R VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

¶17

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.6.2013 PASSED IN R.A.No.81/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ITINERATE COURT, C.N.HALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.8.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.283/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed seeking setting aside the

¶21

judgment and decree dated 06.06.2013 passed in R.A.No.81/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge, Chikkanayakanahalli and the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2012 passed in O.S.No.283/2008 by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chikkanayakanahalli.

¶22

The parties will be referred to by their rankings as per the Trial Court.

¶23

The appellants were defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No.283/2008.

¶24

The respondent – plaintiff filed a suit against the appellants – defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking relief of

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

¶26

¶27

permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.16/46, measuring 4 acres 38 guntas of

¶28

Manchanakatte village.

¶29

It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband Sri.H.D.Bheemanna was a freedom fighter and the suit schedule property has been granted to him vide order No.LNDRUCSR.5/82-83 dated 30.03.1984 by the Tahsildar, Chikkanayakanahalli and he was the absolute owner and in possession of the same. After his death, the plaintiff being his wife, inherited it and made improvements investing huge amount and got mutated her name in the revenue records, cultivating it and enjoying it by paying the taxes regularly.

¶30

The defendants denied the case of the plaintiff, disputed the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the defendants’ contention that their father Sri.Gangadharaiah has acquired possession to an extent of 4 acres from past 30 years and after his death, the defendants are in possession. It is

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

¶32

stated that the defendants have filed application for grant of the said property under Bagar Hukum and the Committee has recommended for grant of the said land to the defendants. It is stated that the defendants have also filed a suit against the plaintiff in O.S.No.424/2008. It is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed.

¶33

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

¶34

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing the suit?

¶35

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the invasion of the defendants over the suit schedule property, as alleged in the plaint?

¶36

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

¶37

4. What order or Decree?”

¶38

The plaintiff’s Power of Attorney Holder ie., her son

¶39

has been examined as PW1 and examined one witness as

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

¶41

PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and they examined one

¶42

witness as DW3 and got marked Exs.D1 to D8.

¶43

The Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides, appreciating the evidence on record, has answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶44

Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal in R.A.No.81/2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, Chikkanayakanahalli (First Appellate Court).

¶45

The First Appellate Court after hearing the arguments

¶46

of both sides has formulated the following points for consideration:

¶47

“1. Whether the appellant proves that the Trial Court not made proper evaluation of the documents on record and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is perverse, capricious and opposed to law and existing factual circumstance of this case, does it need interference by this Court?

¶48

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

¶49

2. What Order?”

¶50

The First Appellate Court after hearing the arguments and re-appreciating the evidence on record, has answered the points in the negative and dismissed the appeal.

¶51

Aggrieved by the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court, the defendants have filed this second appeal.

¶52

Heard learned counsel for the appellants on

¶53

admission.

¶54

In the appeal memo, the following substantial questions of law have been proposed:

¶55

“1. Whether the Courts below have justified in granting Permanent Injunction to the Plaintiff on the basis of the Grant Certificate without coming to a conclusion as to its genuiness especially when the same has been disputed by the Defendants raising cogent doubts?

¶56

2. Whether the Courts were justified in not considering Ex.D2 which proves the occupation of

¶57

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

¶58

Defendants over the suit schedule property beyond any reasonable doubt?

¶59

3. Whether the Courts below erred in giving excessive importance to the evidence of PW1 without considering the Defendants’ evidence in the proper perspective?

¶60

4. Can a GPA holder of Plaintiff be examined in a suit for injunction?”

¶61

The plaintiff’s husband who was a freedom fighter

¶62

has been granted the suit schedule property by the Tahsildar, Chikkanayakanahalli. The grant certificate is at Ex.P3. The property which is granted in favour of husband

¶63

of the plaintiff is the property bearing Sy.No.16/46, measuring 4 acres 38 guntas. Even the boundaries have been mentioned in Ex.P3. The said boundaries are also the boundaries of the suit schedule property. The name of the plaintiff’s husband came to be mutated to the suit schedule property by M.R.No.6/1986. M.R. extract is at Ex.P9.

¶64

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

¶65

After the death of plaintiff’s husband, name of the plaintiff came to be mutated in the R.T.C of the suit schedule property (Ex.P12). The name of the plaintiff’s husband has been shown as cultivator in Column No.12(2) for the years 1993-94 till 1997-98. The name of the plaintiff came to be mentioned in the cultivator’s column for the year 1998-99 to 2001-02. Ex.P14 is the R.T.C of the suit schedule property for the years 2010-11, wherein the name of the plaintiff is shown in Column Nos.9 and 12(2). All these documents reveal that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶66

PWs.1 and 2 have also deposed that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants are interfering with the enjoyment of the said property by the plaintiff.

¶67

The defendants contended that they have been in unauthorized occupation of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.16. It is their further contention that they have filed an application for grant of the said land and it is pending.

¶68

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

¶69

The defendants have not stated as to what is the Block number in Sy.No.16, in which they are in possession and for which they filed application seeking grant of the land. It is their contention that they made the said application seeking grant of land in the year 1998. The defendants have not produced any document before this Court or the

¶70

First Appellate Court or the Trial Court, regarding what happened to their application, seeking grant of land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.16.

¶71

The defendants claimed that they are in possession of the suit schedule property on the basis of the mahazar (Ex.D2) drawn by the Revenue Inspector. In that, it is stated that defendant No.1 is in possession of 2 acres of land. Ex.P16 is the R.T.C of Sy.No.16/4, measuring 2 acres and it is in the name of one Sri.Sidramaiah, S/o Sri.Ganganna. DWs.1 and 2 have stated that the said property ie., 16/4 is in the name of their brother.

¶72

In Ex.D3, name of defendant No.1 is mentioned at

¶73

Sl.No.4 in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.16, Block

¶74

NC: 2023:KHC:20714 RSA No. 1401 of 2014

¶75

10 -

¶76

No.4 to an extent of 2 acres 9 guntas. The evidence of DWs.1 and 2 is to the effect that they are not in possession of the suit schedule property, within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint.

¶77

Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly held that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants are interfering with her possession.

¶78

On considering the above aspects, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Jayaramaiah v. Lalithamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaramaiah v. Lalithamma

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 Raghu Vs Sri N C Somasekhara Reddy

M M Rajegowda Vs Kalamma

Smt Mohan Ambal Vs Sri v Narayana Reddy

Santhosh Kumar H R @ Santhosh Vs State by

Smt Siddagangamma Vs Smt Ramakka

Shri K N Abhilash Vs Shri N Chandrappa