Dismissed

Sri Nagaraju @ Swamy v. Smt Balkis John

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023RSA/164/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka decided a regular second appeal challenging concurrent decrees granting an injunction. The defendants, original owners who failed to set up a counter claim or rebuttal evidence after the property was sold in 1985, argued for ancestral ownership. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that sellers cannot challenge title bought in good faith years later. No substantial q

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed; interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Sri Nagaraju @ Swamy Vs Smt Balkis John — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40794 RSA No. 164 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2016 (INJ)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI NAGARAJU @ SWAMY S/O CHIKKEGOWDA @ PAPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶7

SRI. RAVI S/O SWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶8

BOTH ARE R/O HOSANANDOOR VILLAGE, BELAGULA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438.

¶9

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT BALKIS JOHN W/O IQBAL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D.NO.251, EWS KUVEMPUNAGAR, 3^RD STAGE, MYSORE-570023

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. K L SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:40794 RSA No. 164 of 2016

¶18

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 26.08.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 30/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SRIRANGAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD: 27.03.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO. 92/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., SRIRANGAPATNA.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants, who have questioned the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein plaintiff's suit for injunction simpliciter against the defendants herein is decreed. The said concurrent findings are under challenge by the unsuccessful defendants.

¶22

For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties

¶23

are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶24

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶25

Plaintiff has instituted the present suit for injunction

¶26

simpliciter by specifically asserting that she has purchased the suit property bearing site No.119 from one K.G.Latha

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40794 RSA No. 164 of 2016

¶28

W/o B.N.Ramprasad under registered sale deed dated 03.04.2006. The plaintiff has specifically contended that the site was owned by defendant No.1's father, Sri.Chikkegowda @ Papegowda. Defendant No.1's father has sold the said site in favour of said K.G.Latha W/o B.N.Ramprasad under registered sale deed dated 02.04.1985 who in-turn has sold it to the present plaintiff. The plaintiff, narrating the flow of title, claimed that she has acquired valid right and title and therefore, contended that she is in lawful possession. Alleging that there is interference by the defendants, the present suit is filed.

¶29

Defendants, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants, on the contrary, claimed that Sy.No.19/2 measuring 15 guntas, including 3 guntas of kharab land, is the ancestral property of father of defendant No.1. Defendants admit that defendant No.1's father, Sri.Chikkegowda @ Papegowda, got the agricultural land converted and after

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40794 RSA No. 164 of 2016

¶31

conversion, the property was numbered as Janger No.99. Defendants have contested the suit by contending that plaintiff is nowhere concerned to the property and by giving wrong description, plaintiff has falsely laid a claim over the suit property. Defendants claimed that suit property was kept vacant for the use of defendants family members and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶32

Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence.

¶33

The Trial Court, having examined the pleadings of the parties and title documents, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving her lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Having taken cognizance of the tenor of defence set up in the written statement, the Trial Court held that plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating that defendants are unnecessarily interfering with plaintiff's possession. Referring to title deeds, the Trial Court held

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40794 RSA No. 164 of 2016

¶35

that the property was admittedly owned by defendant No.1's father, who in turn sold it to K.G.Latha W/o B.N.Ramprasad under registered sale deed dated 02.04.1985. The Trial Court further noticed that the said K.G.Latha W/o B.N.Ramprasad has in-turn sold the suit site in favour of the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 03.04.2006 which is marked as Ex.P-6. Referring to these title document and in absence of rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants, the Trial Court decreed the suit.

¶36

The Appellate Court as a final fact finding authority, has independently assessed oral and documentary evidence. The Appellate Court, referring to the title deed vide Ex.P-6, has concurred with the reasons and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court in absence of rebuttal evidence let in by defendants was not inclined to interfere with the conclusions and reasons assigned by the Trial Court while decreeing the suit.

¶37

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40794 RSA No. 164 of 2016

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶39

defendants and learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

¶40

The contention of the learned counsel appearing

¶41

for defendants that the suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable cannot be acceded to. His contention that the plaintiff was required to seek relief of declaration of title cannot be acceded to, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff is asserting her lawful possession based on title deeds. Mere denial of title will not compel a party to file a comprehensive suit and seek relief of declaration and injunction. Where title is clear and is not shrouded with any cloud, plaintiff need not seek relief of declaration. Where defendant sets up a counter title and there is serious challenge to the plaintiff's title over the suit property, in such cases, it is always incumbent on the part of plaintiff to file a comprehensive suit and in such cases cannot maintain a suit for injunction. In the present case on hand, defendant No.1's father sold the suit site way

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:40794 RSA No. 164 of 2016

¶44

back in 1985, under registered sale deed. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the family lost this site way back in 1985. The first sale executed by defendant No.1's father is not at all questioned by the defendants till this date. The plaintiff, referring to the title deeds and after due enquiry, purchased this property in 2006. If defendants family lost the site in 1985, they cannot be permitted to contend now that the suit property is a joint family ancestral property and that defendant No.1's father had no right to meddle with the suit site. Such a defence cannot be entertained at this juncture. The family lost the suit site in 1985 and the first purchaser having enjoyed the property for almost 21 years, has further transferred it in favour of the plaintiff under registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration. If plaintiff after verifying the title deeds and other documents has purchased the site, the defendants, who have slept over their rights, if any, cannot now be permitted to question the plaintiff's title. Referring to the cogent and clinching evidence let in by plaintiff, both the Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff has succeeded

¶45

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40794 RSA No. 164 of 2016

¶46

in substantiating his lawful possession. Having taken note of the tenor of defence and more particularly, the pleadings in the written statement, both the Courts have concurrently held that there is interference by the defendants. The findings and conclusions recorded by both the Courts are based on legal evidence let in by the plaintiff and in absence of rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants.

¶47

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

¶48

The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Nagaraju @ Swamy v. Smt Balkis John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagaraju @ Swamy v. Smt Balkis John

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

Sri H O Chandrashekara Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt. Gangu Vs Hemalatha B. Suvarna

Smt. Moazama Ishrath Quereshi Vs Smt. Zarina Begum

Sri Nagaraju @ Swamy Vs Mr Stephen Raj

Sri Rudrappa Vs E B Thippeswamy

Smt. Fathimunissa Vs Sri. Mohamad Hafeezulla Shariff