Dismissed

Sri. Krishnappa v. Samanduru Grama Panchayathi

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023RSA/143/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal where the appellant, a plaintiff in a title suit, failed to establish his vendor's title. Concurrent lower courts found the sale deeds pertained to a different plot and the original owner was someone else. The High Court upheld the dismissal for lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; I.A. No.2/2021 (additional evidence) rejected; I.A. No.1/2021 (amendment of plaint) rejected.

Sri. Krishnappa Vs Samanduru Grama Panchayathi — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:39868 RSA No. 143 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.143 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKASOMBAIAH RESIDING AT BALAGERI VILLAGE PANATHUR POST VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU - 560103

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHANKAR REDDY C, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

SAMANDURU GRAMA PANCHAYATHI SUBMANGALA DINNE SANJAYA NAGARA SAMANDURU HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN CODE - 562106

¶15

THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ANEKAL TALUK PANCHAYATHI ANEKAL TOWN - 562106

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39868 RSA No. 143 of 2016

¶17

SRI.VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YERARS RESIDING AT GUDDANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562106

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. KANTHARAJA V, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; R.1 AND R.2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD.25.11.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5011/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD.8.8.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2219/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who has challenged the concurrent judgments of the both Courts, wherein the plaintiff's suit

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39868 RSA No. 143 of 2016

¶25

seeking relief of declaration of title and for consequential

¶26

relief of injunction is rejected by both the Courts.

¶27

For the sake of brevity, the parties are

¶28

referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶29

Brief facts leading to the case are as under;

¶30

The plaintiff has instituted the present suit in O.S.No.2219/2006 claiming title over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is vacant site bearing Khaneshmari No.39/3. The plaintiff asserts that he is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff claimed that he has purchased the suit property from one Byrappa @ Gopala under the registered sale deed dated 11.02.1985. The plaintiff has further pleaded that his vendor while selling the suit property wrongly mentioned the property as Khaneshmari No.40 instead of showing Khaneshmari No.39/3. The plaintiff claimed that the said error was rectified after the death of his vendor - Byrappa @ Gopala. The plaintiff's vendor's widow namely

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:39868 RSA No. 143 of 2016

¶33

Lakshmamma has executed a Rectification Deed after filing of the suit by the defendants for injunction in O.S.No.52/1999. The plaintiff claimed that the registered Rectification Deed was executed by the widow on 19.12.2000. The plaintiff has further alleged that defendant No.3, without having any semblance of right, title and possession over the suit schedule property, has managed to mutate his name in respect of the suit schedule property in collusion with defendant No.1.

¶34

In response to summons, defendant No.3

¶35

tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint.

¶36

The plaintiff and defendants to substantiate

¶37

their respective claims have placed reliance on the title document. The plaintiff's sale deed is marked as Ex.P.1, while defendant No.3's sale deed is marked as Ex.D.18. To counter the claim of defendant No.3, the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in a bare suit for

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:39868 RSA No. 143 of 2016

¶40

injunction filed by defendant No.3. The judgment rendered in R.A.No.97/2003 arising out of the suit filed in O.S.No.52/1999 is produced by the plaintiff, which is marked as Ex.P.3.

¶41

The Trial Court having assessed the oral and documentary evidence and pleadings of the parties answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative. The Trial Court referring to the title deed produced by the plaintiff held that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate the right and title of his vendor Byrappa @ Gopala. Referring to the property records, the Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that suit property was admittedly standing in the name of one C.Shombaiah and there are absolutely no records indicating that Byrappa was the owner of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court taking cognizance of the admissions elicited in the crossexamination of the plaintiff that he has no documents to substantiate his vendor's title, proceeded to dismiss the suit.

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39868 RSA No. 143 of 2016

¶43

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree

¶44

of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.5011/2013. The Appellate Court being a final fact finding authority has independently assessed the entire materials on record. The Appellate Court while examining the title deeds held that the property claimed by the plaintiff measures 25x30 feet, while the defendant No.3 claimed that he has purchased the present suit property from one Sombaiah under registered sale deed dated 16.11.1998 and the measurement is shown as 30x50 feet. The Appellate Court further found that P.W.1 has admitted that he has no title document to prove the ownership of his vendor. He has further admitted that he did not verify the title of his vendor while purchasing the property bearing Khaneshumari No.40 and he also admits that he has not verified whether his vendor had a saleable interest. On these set of grounds, the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. These concurrent findings are under challenge by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39868 RSA No. 143 of 2016

¶46

Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the defendants. Perused the concurrent findings recorded by the both Courts.

¶47

The plaintiff is asserting title on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by one Byrappa on 11.02.1985. The sale deed executed by Byrappa in the year 1985 pertains to the property bearing Khaneshumari No.40 and not the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has secured a Rectification deed from the widow of Byrappa. During the pendency of the suit, a bare suit for injunction is filed by defendant No.3 in O.S.No.52/1999.

¶48

On meticulous examination of the materials on record, it is clearly evident that the plaintiff's title over the suit schedule property is found to be doubtful. The property records, which are placed on record by both the parties, clearly reveal that the property was admittedly standing in the name of one Shombaiah. Though a feeble

¶49

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39868 RSA No. 143 of 2016

¶50

attempt is made by the plaintiff before this Court that Shombaiah is the father of Byrappa @ Gopala, however, during course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff further contended that the plaintiff's grand father's name is Shombaiah. Both the Courts referring to the title deeds have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his vendor's title over the suit property. Both the Courts have also taken cognizance of the fact that the plaintiff has secured the rectification deed from the widow of original vendor. Based on the rectification deed, the plaintiff is now asserting title over the property No.39/3. If the sale by Byrappa @ Gopala in favour of the plaintiff at the first instance was in respect of the property bearing Khaneshmari No.40, then this Court is of the view that both Courts were justified in holding that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his vendor's title over the suit property bearing Khaneshmari No.39/3. These concurrent findings and conclusions recorded by both the Courts is for want of cogent and clinching evidence at the hands of the

¶51

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:39868 RSA No. 143 of 2016

¶52

plaintiff to substantiate his vendor's title over the suit schedule property. Both Courts have also taken cognizance of the dismissal of bare suit for injunction filed by defendant No.3. The present suit is a comprehensive suit seeking relief of declaration of title and injunction. It is a trite law that the party approaching the Court has to substantiate his case independently and cannot bank on the weakness of the defendants. If plaintiff is asserting title over the property in question, he is not only required to establish his independent title over the property in question but also he is required to establish the title of his vendor over the property in question. Since the property was admittedly standing in the name of Shombaiah, the property extracts produced before the both Courts does clearly establish that the property was never standing in the name of plaintiff's vendor. All these significant details are exhaustively and meticulously dealt by both the Courts while appreciating the evidence let in by the plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶53

10 -

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:39868 RSA No. 143 of 2016

¶55

In the light of the findings recorded by the

¶56

Courts, the application seeking production additional evidence, which was rejected by the Appellate Court, has no relevancy to decide controversy between the parties. The allegations that the defendants have illegally trespassed and has encroached over the portion of the suit property, which is reflected in the additional evidence, cannot be gone into as the plaintiff has failed to establish his title. Therefore, I.A.No.2/2021 seeking production of additional evidence cannot be looked into in the present second appeal. Accordingly, the I.A.No.2/2021 is rejected. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2021 filed for amendment of plaint is also rejected.

¶57

Second appeal is devoid of merits and

¶58

accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶59

Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

NBM

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri. Krishnappa v. Samanduru Grama Panchayathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Krishnappa v. Samanduru Grama Panchayathi

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

Parameshwara S Vs Subbammannamma

Smt. Chinnamma Vs the Chairman

Smt H G Krishnakumari Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt Rathnamma Vs Sri Nagaraju

B v Seetharam Vs Smt. Eunice Britto

Smt Theresa Crasta Vs John Gabriel D Silva