Court dismissed a regular second appeal regarding a suit for injunction over disputed property. Admissions elicited in cross-examination established the property was sold via 1970 deed, defeating the appellant's claim of ownership.
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 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1456 OF 2023 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. S. SRINIVAS, SON OF SRI. SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HAROGOLIGE VILLAGE, MUTTUR HOBLI, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
…APPELLANT
(BY MS. BUDDHI NISHITA GAURI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI. N. D. SURENDRA, SON OF SRI. DUGGANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HAROGOLIGE VILLAGE, MUTTUR HOBLI, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARSHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.15/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.03.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.49/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI.
NC: 2023:KHC:45578 RSA No. 1456 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who has questioned the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein plaintiff's suit for injunction simplicitor filed in O.S.No.49/2017 is dismissed.
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking injunction in respect of property bearing No.16/13 measuring 250 feet east-west and 250 feet north-south. The plaintiff claims that he is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property for the last 25 years and that he is paying taxes to the Grama Panchayath. Plaintiff further pleaded that property was originally standing in the name of his father and after his demise, plaintiff has inherited the property and is in possession. The present suit is filed alleging that defendant, who has no semblance
of right and title and who is the owner of the adjoining property, is obstructing and interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession. Hence, the present suit is filed.
NC: 2023:KHC:45578 RSA No. 1456 of 2023
several admissions elicited in cross-examination of
plaintiff, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed the suit. While answering issue No.1 in the negative, the Trial Court, taking cognizance of several admissions elicited in cross-examination of plaintiff, held that defendant has succeeded in substantiating that plaintiff's family, having sold the suit schedule property way back in 1972, cannot seek an injunction. The plaintiff's contention that the defendant, having purchased the property in 1972, has not paid the entire sale consideration was also not exceeded too. The Trial Court
also held that plaintiffs claim over the suit schedule property's with specific boundaries and extent is found to be doubtful. Referring to rebuttal evidence let in by the defendant, the Trial Court held that plaintiff's father has purchased the suit property for valuable sale consideration and therefore held that plaintiff is not entitled to seek an injunction. While answering issue No.1 in the negative, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate
his lawful possession. The Trial Court also held that alleged interference was not established by the plaintiff.
88 totally measuring 250 feet east-west and 250 northsouth. During trial, defendant, by leading rebuttal evidence, has succeeded in establishing that plaintiff's father has sold the property that was allotted to his father in a family partition to which plaintiff is a signatory. Defendant, apart from producing the title document, has also successfully succeeded in eliciting in crossexamination of plaintiff that property that was allotted to plaintiff's father in a family partition is sold to defendant's father under a registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration. Interestingly, the defendant has also succeeded in eliciting in cross-examination the extent, boundary and location of the property, i.e., sold to the father of the defendant herein. The defendant has further succeeded in eliciting that the property under the said boundaries is the very suit property. Though both the Courts have not culled out the relevant paragraphs of cross-examination, I deem it fit to cull out the crossexamination, wherein the plaintiff has tendered several categorical admissions that go to the root of the case.
NC: 2023:KHC:45578 RSA No. 1456 of 2023
These admissions are found to be fatal to the plaintiff's case.
"ನನ�ತಂ�ೆಮತು�ಅವರಸ�ೋದರರಮ�ೆ�ಆ�ರುವಂತಹ��ಾ�ಪತ� ನನ�ಬ�ಇರುವ!"ಲ$ .
ನನ�ತಂ�ೆ��ೆ�%ೆಬಂ"ರುವಸ&'�ನದ(ಣ"+%ೆ,ೆಂ-ೆಮಂಜಣ/ ಇವರ ಕಣ , ಪ12ಮ"+%ೆಕಣಇರುತ � ೆ ಎಂದ4ೆಸ5ಯಲ$ . ಬಸಪ7%ೌಡರಮ,ೆ ಇರುತ � ೆ . ನನ�ತಂ�ೆ%ೆ��ೆ�ಯ:$ ಬಂ"ರುವಂತಹಮ,ೆಯಪ;ವ< "+%ೆ ಪ�'=ಾ"ಗಳಮ,ೆಬರುತ � ೆ ಎಂದ4ೆಸ5 . ಪ;ವ< "+ನ:$ ಬರುವಂತಹ ಮ,ೆಯನು�,ಾವ! ಪ�'=ಾ" ತಂ�ೆ%ೆ @ಾ4ಾಟ@ಾBರುCೆ�ೕ=ೆ ಎಂದ4ೆ ಸ5ಯಲ$ . " :31-08-1970 ರ:$ ಶುದE ಕ�ಯಪತ�ದಮೂಲಕ=ಾಸದ ಮ,ೆ ಮತು�FೊGH%ೆಯನು�,ಾನುಮತು�ನನ�ತಂ�ೆ �ೇ5 ಪ�'=ಾ"ಗ ತಂ�ೆ%ೆರೂ . 2,000-00 Fೆ+ @ಾ4ಾಟ@ಾBರುCೆ�ೕ=ೆಎಂದ4ೆಸ5ಯಲ$ .
ನನ� ಸ&'�ನ ಅಳCೆ ಮತು� ಚಕು+ಬಂ"ಯನು�Cೋ5ಸುವಂತಹ Kಾವ!�ೇ �ಾಖMೆಯನು�,ಾನು %ಾ�ಮ ಪಂNಾಯ'Oಂದ ಪPೆ"ರುವ!"ಲ$. RS-7 ರ:$ ಕ�ಮ ಸಂVೆ� 12 ನನ� ಸ&'�%ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪGHರುತ � ೆ. Vಾ,ೇಷು@ಾ5 ನಂಬರನು�%ಾ�ಮ ಪಂNಾಯ' �ಾಖMೆಗಳ:$ ಈಗ ಬ4ೆಯುವ!"ಲ$ ಎಂದ4ೆ ಸ5, RS-7 ರ:$ ಇರುವ ನನ� ಸ&'�%ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟHಂCೆ ,ಾನು %ಾ�ಮ ಪಂNಾಯ'Oಂದ B@ಾಂ] 5^ಸH_ ಎಕ�`ಾ�ಕHನು� ಪPೆ"ರುCೆ�ೕ,ೆ. �ಾ=ೆ �ಾಕು=ಾಗ ನನ� ಸ&'�ನ a.S.B ನಂಬ_ ಏRತು� ಎಂದು ನನ%ೆ ಸ5Kಾ� %ೊ'�ಲ$."
in cross-examination of plaintiff, two things emerge. Plaintiff's contention that though his father sold the
property as indicated in cross-examination, he has retained a portion is not substantiated by the plaintiff by producing cogent and clinching evidence. The plaintiff has also not substantiated from the recitals in the sale deed, vide Ex.D.1, as to which side he has retained the portion that is now claimed to be the property owned by the plaintiff. It appears on the strength of the property number assigned by the grama panchayath, plaintiff is now asserting that the property that was sold to the defendant and the subject matter of the suit are different. Both the Courts, referring to the evidence on record, have
come to the conclusion that, under the garb of seeking an injunction in respect of property bearing old kanishmari No.72/87-88 totally measuring 250 feet east-west and 250 north-south, plaintiff is virtually laying a claim over the property that was sold to defendant under Ex.D.1. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to establish his lawful possession. In fact, both the courts have recorded a categorical finding that the very
existence of the property is not substantiated by the plaintiff.
In the light of discussion made supra, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands
dismissed .
Though this Court has absolutely no cavil to the principles in the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, the said principles are not applicable to the present case on hand.
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant can establish lawful possession over the suit property when cross-examination admissions establish it was sold to the respondent's father.
Whether the appellant has substantiated a specific claim that a portion of the sold property was retained and constitutes the suit property.
SRI. N. S. SRINIVAS
SRI. N. D. SURENDRA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
