Dismissed

Manjappa v. U H Lakshman

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023RSA/1457/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a regular second appeal filed by a property purchaser. Upholding lower courts' findings, it held that defendants failed to prove valid title via mutation or adverse possession, thus the appellant could not claim rights over the ancestral land of the plaintiffs.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought by the appellant was dismissed. All pending applications stood disposed of.

Manjappa Vs U H Lakshman — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1457 OF 2016 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJAPPA, S/O. DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARSIKERE TQ: 573 125 HASSAN DISTRICT NOTE: NOT CLAIMED SENIOR CITIZENSHIP

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI: MAHESH .A.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

V .H. LAKSHMAN, S/O. HANUMANTHAIAH, MAJOR,

¶14

NINGAMMA, W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, MAJOR,

¶15

VENKATESHMURTHY, S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, MAJOR,

¶16

CHANDRAMMA, W/O GOPAL, MAJOR,

¶17

MEENAKSHI, W/O. PANDURANGA, MAJOR,

¶18

PAGE NO.1 IS RE-TYPED AND REPLACED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19/11/2024

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶20

JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. RAVISHANKAR MAJOR,

¶21

1 TO 6 RESIDING AT UNDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARSIKERE TQ: 573 125. HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶22

DASAPPA, S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, MAJOR,

¶23

GOWRAMMA, W/O. DASAPPA, MAJOR,

¶24

7-8 RESIDING AT

¶25

KANCHIGANALU VILLAGE - 577 213, UBRANI HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT: VIDYA .S., AND

¶28

SRI: KARTHIK .P.M., ADVOCATES FOR R-1, 2, 4 & 6 R-3, 5, 7 & 8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶29

THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.16/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ARSIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.301/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ARASIKERE.

¶30

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

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant No.3 assailing the concurrent judgment of the Courts below, wherein the plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of declaration and title and for consequential relief of injunction is decreed by both the Courts.

¶34

For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties

¶35

are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶36

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶37

The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit seeking relief of declaration of title and for injunction. The subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.67, measuring 2 acres 3 guntas. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the Government vide order dated 01.01.1948 granted the suit land in favour of late Hanumanthaiah who is the ancestor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that after demise of the original grantee, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit schedule

¶38

PAGE NO.3 IS RE-TYPED AND REPLACED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19/11/2024

¶39

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶40

property. The plaintiffs contended that they are the joint family members and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. The present suit is filed alleging that defendant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with the revenue officials, got their names mutated in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property and based on the entries in the revenue records, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. Hence, the present suit is filed.

¶41

Defendants on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement separately. Defendant No.1 while denying the averments made in the plaint claimed that he is in possession of the suit schedule property since 1974 and that he has sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 further claimed that defendant No.3 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as an absolute owner. Defendant No.1 also contended that plaintiff No.1 has given consent to change khatha in favour of defendant

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶43

Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 also contended that

¶44

they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession and they are in possession of the suit schedule property for morethan 25 years.

¶45

Defendant No.3 who is the purchaser, contested

¶46

the proceedings by filing written statement. Defendant No.3 disputed plaintiffs' title over the suit schedule property.

¶47

The plaintiffs and the defendants to

¶48

substantiate their respective claims, let in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court while answering issue No.1 in the affirmative, took cognizance of the stand

¶49

taken by the defendants during trial who have admitted that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of late Hanumanthaiah. Referring to this admission, the trial Court was of the view that there is no dispute in respect of plaintiffs' title over the suit schedule property. While answering issue No.2 in the affirmative, the trial Court has

¶50

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶51

taken cognizance of Exs.P1 to P17. Referring to these documents, the trial Court was of the view that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving their lawful possession

¶52

over the suit schedule property. While answering issue No.3 in the negative, the trial Court held that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to substantiate their contention that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. The trial Court referring to the evidence let in by the plaintiffs coupled with the admission tendered by defendant Nos.1 and 2 who have admitted that plaintiffs' ancestor was granted the suit land in question, proceeded to decree the suit, thereby, declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶53

Defendant No.3 feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The Appellate Court as a final fact finding Authority, has independently assessed the oral and the documentary evidence. The

¶54

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶55

Appellate Court having taken cognizance of the defence set up by defendant Nos.1 and 2, also recorded a categorical finding that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not acquired any title. While placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in KLJ 2013 (4) page 327, the Appellate Court held that the defendants assert title based on the revenue records. On re-assessing the evidence on record, the Appellate Court was also of the view that the plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating that suit land is their ancestral property and defendant Nos.1 and 2 had no saleable title and therefore, the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 would not create any right and title in favour of defendant No.3. Consequently, the appeal came to be dismissed. These concurrent findings are under challenge by defendant No.3 who claims to be the purchaser.

¶56

Heard learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3/appellant and learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents. I have given my anxious

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶58

consideration to the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.

¶59

On examining the observations and the

¶60

conclusions recorded by both the Courts, it clearly reveals that defendant No.1 and 2 have not disputed the fact that Government has granted the suit land in favour of Hanumanthaiah. The grantee- Hanumanthaiah is the father of the plaintiffs herein. If Hanumanthaiah's title is not in dispute, a short question that would arise for consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether defendant Nos.1 and 2 based on the revenue entries, had saleable title, which they could have conveyed in favour of defendant No.3 by executing the sale deed. My answer is emphatically 'No'. If defendant Nos.1 and 2 had no valid right and title which they were capable of passing on in favour of defendant No.3, defendant No.3 will not acquire any right and title in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶61

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶62

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to

¶63

substantiate their right and title over the suit land. Their defence is found in two folds. Firstly, defendant Nos.1 and

¶64

2 claim that plaintiffs have consented for change of khatha

¶65

and based on their consent, the names of defendant No.1 and 2 were mutated in the revenue records. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments held that mere mutation in the revenue records will not in itself confer title in favour of a person whose name is mutated in the revenue records. Therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to substantiate that they acquired title based on the mutation.

¶66

The second limb of defence is that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Both the Courts referring to the pleadings in the written statement and the evidence let in by the defendants, have recorded a categorical finding that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to substantiate that they have perfected their title by way of adverse

¶67

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶68

possession. If defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to substantiate their right and title, defendant No.3 on the strength of the sale deed can neither question plaintiffs' title nor can assert his title over the suit schedule property.

¶69

It is a settled proposition of law that possession follows title. The plaintiffs are held to be the absolute owners. In the absence of any clinching rebuttal evidence to demonstrate that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in possession over the suit schedule property, both the Courts were justified in holding that the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as absolute owners.

¶70

No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed .

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC:43839 RSA No. 1457 of 2016

¶73

In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending

¶74

applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Manjappa v. U H Lakshman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjappa v. U H Lakshman

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

C S Nagaraja Vs Sri J Raviprasad

Shankarappa @ Shankaraiah Vs Sri. H.N. Muddukrishna

Visveswaraiah Iron & Steel Ltd. Vs Wild Life Conservation Action Team

Abdul Khalaq @ Azmu Vs Noor Ahmad Sab Talim Khana

A B Radha Vs M K Ramegowda

Sri Venkataramanappa v M Vs Sri Ramappa B v