Dismissed

Yelahanka Nagappa v. N. Ramachandra

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2023RSA/237/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court of Karnataka adjudicated a permanent injunction dispute regarding land possession. The Court held that the Land Tribunal's order granting occupancy rights was final and the civil court lacked jurisdiction to question it. Consequently, the appeal challenging the lower courts' injunction decree was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; in camera applications dismissed as they do not survive.

Yelahanka Nagappa Vs N. Ramachandra — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2013 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YELAHANKA NAGAPPA S/O MUNISHAMY

¶9

SINCE DECEASED

¶10

a) RAJAMMA

¶11

W/O LATE YELAHANKA NAGAPPA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶13

b) GANGADHAR

¶14

S/O LATE YELAHANKA NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶15

c) MUNIRAJA

¶16

S/O LATE YELAHANKA NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶17

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

d) VENKATESH

¶19

S/O LATE YELAHANKA NAGAPPA

¶20

AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS (AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 13/6/2016)

¶21

SEENAPPA

¶22

S/O JADIYATHI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶23

ALL ARE R/A CHOOWDESHWARI COLONY CHINTHAMANI TOWN 563125 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI. G MANIVANNAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶26

¶27

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶28

AND:

¶29

N. RAMACHANDRA S/O GIDDANAGARI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶30

N. SRINIVAS S/O LATE GIDDANAGARI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶31

BOTH ARE R/A AGRAHARA VILLAGE CHINTHAMANI TOWN 563 125 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. M S VARADARAJAN., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED)

¶34

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 30.10.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.9/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAHMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 16.12.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.131/1994 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, CHINTHAMANI.

¶35

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

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

This appeal is filed by the defendants No.1 and

¶38

2 praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated

¶39

16.12.2012 passed in OS No.131/1994 by Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Chinthamani and judgement and decree dated 30.10.2017 passed in RA No.9/2006 by

¶40

¶41

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶42

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chinthamani and prayed for dismissal of the suit in OS No.131/1994.

¶43

Parties in this appeal are hereby referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. The Appellants No.1 and 2 are the defendants and respondents No.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. The original plaintiff is Giddanagari Narayanappa s/o Venkatappa. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that deceased plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants with respect to the suit schedule property. Suit Sy.No.160 of Nekkundi Village belongs Patalamma Devara Inamthi. The plaintiff was cultivating the said property since long time

¶44

and he applied to the Land Tribunal, Chinthamani for granting occupancy right. After enquiry, the Land Tribunal confirmed the occupancy right vide order dated 19.8.1982.

¶45

Since, then he became an absolute owner and in possession of suit property. He stated that he was paying kandayam to the Government and katha has been changed in his name. He constructed a house in the suit

¶46

¶47

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶48

survey number measuring 60 x 25 feet in which he is residing and also laid foundation in western side of north corner measuring 30 x 15 feet for cattle shed and he also collected building material to construct cattle shed. He stated that there is a Chinthamani-Bukkanahalli Road passing through the suit schedule land in Sy.No.160, there is about 20 guntas of land i.e., suit schedule property situated towards western side of the road for which defendants caused obstruction to the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. It is stated that Chowdeshwari Temple situated in Sy.No.222 and it is in no way concerned to the suit survey number. It is stated that separate road to reach the Chowdeshwari Temple which is in existence since time immemorial and the said road is not situated in Sy.No.160 at any point of time. It is stated that the defendants and others gave a representation to the Tahasildar on 12.7.1994 to grant 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.160 situated in front of Chowdeshwari Temple but the Tahasildar did not consider their application as the land was already granted by the Tribunal to the plaintiff. As

¶49

¶50

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶51

the defendants did not succeed in their attempt before revenue authorities resorted to illegal attempts of obstructing the possession of plaintiff in suit schedule property. Therefore, he filed a suit for partition.

¶52

Defendants have filed a joint written statement contending that the Chowdeshwari Temple is situated in the suit property, which is divided into 2 portions by a road which runs from Chinthamani to Bukkanahlli Village. In the western portion of the suit property, the said temple is situated from time immemorial. The entire western portion of the land from the road was occupied by Veeragaali, Dwajastambas, Idol of Nagadevatha, Idol of Goddess Omshakti, Idol of Ganesha, Idol of Anjaneya Swamy, apart from the amin Goddess Chowdeshwari and Navagrahas. The said entire western portion is used by entire Hindus and devotees for conducting Jatre from time immemorial. There are also two stone pillars which were used for Dolotsava by the Goddess from time immemorial. It is stated that Nekkundi village, which is adjacent to

¶53

¶54

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶55

Chinthamani village and from centuries, deepostsava is celebrated on a single day in every year by the entire hindu people of Chinthamani and Nekkundi Villages to goddess Gangamma situated at Narasimhapet, Chinthamani. It is stated that during the said deepostsava thousands of devotes will assemble in the western portion of the suit property to celebrate the deepotsava and also various other religious Kainkaryas. It is stated that land is used by the devotees for customary right, he stated that, the defendants as devotees of goddess

¶56

Chowdeshwari has got the right over the suit property and have got an easementary right over the western portion of the suit property to hold Jatre and use the land for the purpose of temple function. He stated that the suit property is only way to reach the temple to offer poojas/prayers and there is no any other alternative way to reach the temple. He stated that the plaintiffs never exercised their proprietary rights over the suit property and the land is not under cultivation for more than 200 years. This fact has been confirmed by the Revenue

¶57

¶58

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶59

authorities through proceedings such as spot inspection and mahazars. It is stated that defendants are devotees to the temple and not managed by a registered trust and the trustees are managing the affairs of the temple. With these, he prays for dismissal of the suit. The defendants have also filed an additional written statement by denying the averments of the plaint.

¶60

Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the issues and additional issues, which reads as follows:

¶61

Issues

¶62

Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is exclusive, lawful and peaceful possession of the suit property, on the date of suit?

¶63

Whether the plaintiff proves that on 09.7.1994 and also on the subsequent dates, the defendants were tried to interfere into his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property?

¶64

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief sought?

¶65

¶66

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶67

4. What order or decree?

¶68

Addl. Issues

¶69

Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant illegally removed the foundation laid by the plaintiff subsequent to the recording of evidence of Pw.1 and laid some stone idols in the suit schedule property as contended in Para.4D of his plaint?

¶70

One of the LR of plaintiff namely N. Srinivas

¶71

Has been examined as Pw.1 and got examined one witness

¶72

as Pw.2 and got marked 28 documents as Ex.P1 to 28.

¶73

The defendants No.1 and 5 has been examined as Dw1

¶74

and 2 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to 3. The Trial

¶75

Court after hearing the arguments and appreciating the oral evidence and documents on the record answered issues No.1 to 3 and additional issue No.1 in affirmative

¶76

and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court the defendant No.1 and 5 have filed appeal in RA No.9/.2006

¶77

¶78

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶79

before Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chinthamani (First Appellate Court). The First Appellate Court after hearing the arguments, by framed the following points for consideration .

¶80

Whether the Trial Court is justified in granting permanent injunction with respect to suit schedule property against the defendants?

¶81

Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial court warrant interference?

¶82

What order?

¶83

The First Appellant Court answered point No.1

¶84

in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative and dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree

¶85

passed by the Trial Court in

¶86

OS No.131/1994. The appellant has challenged the judgement and decrees passed in OS No.131/1994 and RA No.9/2006 in this second appeal. This appeal came to be admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:

¶87

10 -

¶88

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶89

1.Whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit for bare injunction when the defendants have questioned the very title and possession of plaintiff to suit schedule property?

¶90

2.Whether the courts below have erroneously appreciated the available evidence to decree the suit?

¶91

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and

¶92

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶93

Learned counsel for the appellants would

¶94

contend that documents which has been relied upon by the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.161 are fabricated one and he has pointed out some dates and numbers in Ex.P2, P16, P3, P15 and P20 to substantiate his contention.

¶95

He contends that when earlier application filed by plaintiff has been rejected on 19.11.1975, there is no question of granting Sy.No.160 measuring 2 acers 33 guntas to the plaintiff by the Land Tribunal and he reiterates that the documents produced by the plaintiff are

¶96

11 -

¶97

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶98

fabricated. He contends that the defendants and other people of Nekkundi Village are used this suit schedule property for the purpose of religious function of the Chowdeshwari temple situated on the western side of the suit schedule property.

¶99

Learned counsel further submits that in the cross-examination P.W.1 and P.W.2 have admitted that the suit schedule property has been used by the villagers to perform religious activities on the occasion of festivals etc. It is his further submission that injunction granted against the defendants will not bind other villagers. He seeks liberty to the villagers to initiate legal proceedings seeking use of the suit schedule property for performing religious activities of Chowdeshwari temple.

¶100

Learned counsel for respondents would contend

¶101

that the main contention of the defendants who are appellants herein is that Land Tribunal has exceeded in jurisdiction in granting occupancy rights to the plaintiff. Order of the Land Tribunal has not been challenged either

¶102

12 -

¶103

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶104

by the defendants or any other person and it has become final. He contends that the Civil Court cannot sit over the

¶105

order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiff. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of

¶106

Stumpp Scheule and Somappa (P) Limited Vs. Chandrappa reported in ILR 1985 Kar. 3872 . The very fact that the villagers made representation to the Tahsildar as per Ex.P.14 admitting the grant of occupancy rights in respect of survey No. 160 and seeking grant of 4 guntas of

¶107

land adjacent to the Chowdeshwari Temple for performing religious activities itself shows that the defendants who are signatories to the said representation admit grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have not sought any relief regarding performance of customary rights in the suit schedule property. Even the claim of the defendants for easement right over the suit schedule property itself shows that they admit the title of the plaintiffs. Defendants have not sought any rights and do not claim

¶108

13 -

¶109

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶110

any title. He submits that earlier the plaintiff had filed an application in form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and subsequently he made an application claiming occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act. For that he referred to an affidavit of the plaintiff which is at Ex.P.24. He contends that the Trial Court and the appellate Court rightly appreciating the evidence on record had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and granted decree of injunction against the defendants.

¶111

Property bearing survey No. 160 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas belongs to Patalamma Devara Inamti Land and the plaintiff was cultivating the said land. Pursuant to abolition of inams, the plaintiff made an application to the Land Tribunal seeking grant of occupancy rights in his favour to an extent of 2 acres 33 guntas. The Land Tribunal after making enquiry has passed an order dated 19.08.1981 granting occupancy

¶112

14 -

¶113

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶114

rights in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P.2 – endorsement issued by the Land Tribunal, Chintamani, discloses that 2 acres 33 guntas of land in survey No. 160 has been granted to the deceased plaintiff. Ex.P.3 is the order sheet of the Land Tribunal which shows that survey No. 160 to an extent of 2 acres 33 guntas was granted to the deceased plaintiff. Ex.P.4 is the challan which discloses that deceased plaintiff had paid premium in respect of land granted to him. Learned counsel for appellants has pointed out some numbers and dates in the documents produced

¶115

by the plaintiff pertaining to grant of occupancy rights in his favour to contend that they are forged and fabricated documents. On perusal of the entire written statement the defendants have not taken up any such contention that the plaintiff has forged and fabricated the documents on which he is relying upon for grant of occupancy rights in respect of survey No. 160 of Nekkundi village.

¶116

It is the contention of the of the defendants who are appellants herein that the Land Tribunal exceeded

¶117

15 -

¶118

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶119

in jurisdiction in granting occupancy rights to the plaintiff. The documents produced by the plaintiff which are referred to above disclose that the property in survey No. 160 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas of Nekkundi village has been granted in favour of the plaintiff by the Land Tribunal. Said order passed by the Land Tribunal has become final as there is no challenge to the said order. The civil Courts have no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the orders passed by the Land Tribunal. Same has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Stump

¶120

Scheule Somappa’s case (supra). In the said decision the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus:

¶121

“To sum up: After the inams were abolished and the lands vested in the State Government, the only right preserved to the parties is to apply for registration of occupancy rights either as ‘Kadim’ tenant, permanent tenant or other tenants recognized under the law. When such applications are made, the Special Deputy Commissioner, who is the statutory authority constituted under the Inams Abolition Act, is required to make an enquiry and grant relief. His order is appealable under

¶122

16 -

¶123

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶124

Section 28 to the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the decision of the Tribunal becomes final. Section 31(3) states that no order passed by the Deputy Commissioner or Tribunal shall be liable to be cancelled or modified except by the High Court under Section 31. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 31 is, however, limited and confined only to orders determining compensation except those referred to in Section 28.

¶125

25. It is thus seen that the Inams Abolition Act attaches finality to the orders granting registration of occupancy rights. What does it mean? Is it not an implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts? Is not the Inams Abolition Act a complete Code by itself? Does it not provide machinery for adjudicating the rights of parties with appellate forum to correct the errors of the adjudicating authority? If that is so, could Civil Courts still exercise general jurisdiction over the same dispute. Had the Legislature intended to provide dual remedies to parties or intended to establish two authorities to determine the same question? We think not. The grant of occupancy right as ‘kadim’ tenant, permanent tenant or any other tenant is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the special authority constituted under the Inams Abolition Act which is a special enactment. Its order is

¶126

17 -

¶127

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶128

appealable to the prescribed authority and it then becomes final. It is, therefore, legitimate to infer that by reason of the provisions of Section 28 read with Section 31(3) of the Inams Abolition Act, the adjudication as to registration of occupancy right in respect of the land which immediately before the date of vesting was properly included in the holding of the applicant becomes final and conclusive. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to reopen that matter.”

¶129

Therefore, the civil Courts cannot go into the aspect of the contention of the defendants that the Land Tribunal exceeded in its jurisdiction in granting occupancy rights in respect of survey No. 160 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas to the plaintiff.

¶130

Defendants have not made any claim of title over the suit schedule property. The defendants claim that the villagers are performing some religious activities in the suit schedule property on the occasion of festivals. Except the same there is no other claim by the defendants or the villagers. Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.13 are the pahani and RTC

¶131

18 -

¶132

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶133

extracts and they establish that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property and his name has

¶134

been entered in column No. 12 of pahani since from the year 1983-84 to 1994-95. The deceased plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 2 acres 33 guntas of suit survey number i.e., survey No. 160 of Nekkundi village. Ex.P.11 establishes that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of suit. Ex.P.14 is the representation given by the villagers including the defendants to the Tahsildar requesting to reserve 4 guntas of land in the land granted to the plaintiff measuring 2 acres 33 guntas in survey No. 160 for the use of the Temple. The contents of the said representation of the defendants and the villagers show that they admit the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 2 acres 33 guntas in survey No. 160 of Nekkundi village. The suit schedule land is 13 guntas of land to the western side of the entire granted land in survey No. 160 of Nekkundi village. There is a road passing in between that land. The only dispute is with

¶135

19 -

¶136

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶137

respect to the western side in the granted land which is the suit schedule property. The defendants contend that Chowdeshwari temple is situated in the said 13 guntas of land and idols are situated in the suit land and the same has been used by the devotes on festival days. The plaintiffs contend that Chowdeshwari temple is situated in survey No. 222 situated on the western side of the suit schedule property. D.W.2 in his cross-examination has admitted the boundaries of the suit schedule property and that Chowdeshwari temple is situated towards western

¶138

side of the suit schedule property. In Ex.P.14 – representation made by the villagers including the defendants they have admitted the possession of suit schedule property by the plaintiff and his family members. The Trial Court and the first appellate Court appreciating and reappreciating the evidence on record rightly held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and defendants are invading in possession of suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. Both the Courts have taken into consideration the evidence on record and rightly held that

¶139

20 -

¶140

RSA No. 237 of 2013

¶141

the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered and the appeal is dismissed.

¶142

In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A. Nos. 1/2019 and 1/2023 do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are dismissed.

¶143

Sd/JUDGE

¶144

SR/LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Yelahanka Nagappa v. N. Ramachandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yelahanka Nagappa v. N. Ramachandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C Jayadevaiah Vs Smt Gowramma

Smt Gangamma Vs Sri Nagaraj

Smt Chandamma Shedthy Vs Kalu Kulal

Umesh S/O Ramesh Kamble Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash S/O. Krishna Siddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. H.Jayalaxmi Vs Sri. B. Shridhara Rao