A regular second appeal challenging a permanent injunction decree was dismissed. The High Court declined to admit the appeal as no substantial question of law arose from the lower courts' findings on possession and interference.
Second Appeal No. 1606 of 2021 dismissed; no substantial question of law framed.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1606 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI C.K.CHANNAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O. C.A. KERE VILLAGE AND HOBLI MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021
AND:
S/O LATE KARIYAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. C.A. KERE VILLAGE AND POST C.A. KERE HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571428.
…RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIRO CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.231/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for appellants.
measured and pakka phoded and new Sy.No.1448 has been given. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and he is growing paddy crop in the suit property. The defendant starting interfering with the possession without any right, title over the suit schedule property and continued his illegal acts with the help of neighbors. Hence, filed suit for permanent injunction.
NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021
produced any document and in paragraph No.39 considering the contention of the parties, comes to the conclusion that the defendant has not placed any material before the Court to substantiate his contention and in paragraph No.40 also comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has produced the revenue documents to show that he has been in possession of the property from long time.
NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021
substantiated their contention and on the other hand, the plaintiff relied upon the document to show that he has been in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal.
considering the reasoning given by the Trial Court and the very
NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021
argument of the appellants’ counsel that questioning the judgment and decree passed in the suit for permanent injunction but, this argument is like the suit for declaration filed by the respondent/plaintiff and the said contention cannot be accepted. The Court has to look into only the material on record, whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and also whether there is any interference. Both the Courts have taken note of the interference of the defendants that he claims that he is in unauthorized occupation from last 100 years and also he claims the very same property that he also made an application for grant and the same is pending for consideration.
NC: 2023:KHC:33657 RSA No. 1606 of 2021
possession at the instance of this defendant. Hence, by considering the material on record, both the Courts have passed the judgment. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame any substantive question of law by invoking Section 100 of CPC.
following:
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 105
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should admit the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC against the decree granting permanent injunction.
Whether a substantive question of law exists on the facts regarding the plaintiff's possession and defendant's alleged interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAIAH
SMT. SARADAMMA W/O KATTAIAH
LAKSHMI NARASHIMAIAH S/O LATE C K CHANNAIAH
KAMBAIAH S/O LATE KARIYAIAH
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
