Allowed

Raithara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha v. Manjappa Since Dead by His Lrs

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023RSA/266/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular Second Appeal regarding a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction over properties. The High Court accepted a compromise petition filed by parties which defined property boundaries via a sketch map and ordered a fresh decree accordingly, disposing of the appeal in terms of the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Compromise petition accepted; impugned judgments and decrees set aside; fresh decree passed declaring ownership based on agreed sketch map and preventing interference.

Raithara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Vs Manjappa Since Dead… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:39646 RSA No. 266 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAITHARA SEVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA HEAD OFFICE AT KADADAKATTE, BHADRAVATHI CITY BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI R GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1. MANJAPPA

¶14

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS:

¶15

Digitally signed by SUNITHA GANGARAJU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

(1) SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE A MANJAPPA R/OBARANDUR VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT, PIN 577 301

¶17

B N MALLESHAPPA

¶18

S/O LATE A MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS:

¶19

2(a) VEDAVATHI, W/O LATE B.N.MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:39646 RSA No. 266 of 2012

¶21

¶22

2(b) MADHU PATIL S/O LATE B.N.MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶23

BOTH R2 (a) AND (b) ARE R/O BARANDUR VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT, PIN 577 301

¶24

TEERTHA KUMAR S/O LATE A MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O BARANDUR VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT, PIN 577 301

¶25

D SHANTHAKUMAR S/O LATE A MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O BARANDUR VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT, PIN 577 301

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI S V PRAKASH FOR C/R1 & R2(A&B), R3 AND R4, ADVOCATE)

¶28

¶29

RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.206/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, THE FAST TRACK AT BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.1998 PASSED IN O.S.NO.197/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BHADRAVATHI.TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT, APPELLATE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:39646 RSA No. 266 of 2012

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The Chief Executive Officer of appellant and respondent No.2(b), are present before Court physically.

¶35

Respondent No.2(b) is the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent No.1, respondent 2(a), respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 and has produced copy of the GPA, wherein respondent No.1, respondent 2(a), respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 have authorized respondent No.2(b) to enter into compromise the dispute with appellant on their behalf in the instant appeal.

¶36

Parties are identified by their respective learned

¶37

counsel.

¶38

Parties have filed compromise petition and the same is read over and explained to appellant - CEO and R2(b) in Kannada language and they admit the contents of the compromise petition.

¶39

Compromise petition filed by the parties reads as

¶40

under.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:39646 RSA No. 266 of 2012

¶43

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to filing of the above appeal are that the appellant as plaintiff filed suit O.S No. 197/ 1998 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Bhadravathi against defendant Manjappa dead by LRS / respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of B- Schedule property measuring 80 X 25 feet falling within "ABGH" in plaint rough sketch, which is forming part of larger area of item Nos. 1 and 2 of plaint A-Schedule property totally measuring 80 x 70 feet, falling within "ABCD" shown in the plaint rough sketch, bearing janjer No. 30 situated at Barandur Village, Bhadravathi Taluk and also sought for the relief of permanent injunction over A- Schedule property and consequently for mandatory injunction to remove the fence and poles fixed by defendant over portion of B-schedule property. The case of plaintiff is that initially an area of 60 X 80 feet (item No.1 of Schedule-A) was allotted and registered gift deed had been executed on 22-121978 conveying the same in favour of plaintiff and later another adjoining site of 10 X 80 feet (item No.2 of Schedule-A) was allotted and a grant certificate was issued in favour of plaintiff on 15-091979 by Barandur Panchayath and thus plaintiff had become the owner and in possession of the property in all measuring north-south 70 feet and east-west

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39646 RSA No. 266 of 2012

¶45

80 feet (ie, area falling within "ABCD" in the rough sketch) and the plaintiff has built a godown in a portion of the said land and that the defendant though has no manner of right, title and interest over the plaint schedule properties, started interfering. It was contended that the defendant has illegally put fence and poles over portion of B- Schedule property which is situated on the northern side of A-Schedule property. Hence the suit came to be filed for the above reliefs.

¶46

The sole defendant-Manjappa who was then alive filed W.S contending that he has been granted site No.65 bearing janjer No.333/B measuring east-west 50 feet and north-south 25 feet by the Panchayath on 05-09-1971 and he has stated that the same is situated to the northern side of plaintiff's property and that he is the owner and in possession of the same.

¶47

The defendant having died, his LRs who are respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein in this appeal were brought on record in trial court. Now the 2nd respondent - B.N Malleshappa is dead by LR.S respondents 2(a) and (b). The trialcourt by the judgment and decree dated 25-06-2010 dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed RA No. 206/2010 and the court of Fast Track, Bhadravathi dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 15-11-2011

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:39646 RSA No. 266 of 2012

¶50

though appellate court has reversed the finding on issue No.5 by holding that the defendant has failed to prove that granted the said site No. 65 (janger No.333/B).

¶51

That being aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the appellant / plaintiff has filed the above R.S.A No. 266/ 2012 and this Hon'ble court admitted the same.

¶52

It is submitted that the dispute between the parties in the suit is about the identity and location of the suit property and rights of the parties over the disputed properties in as much as the plaintiff has claimed that B-Schedule forms part of A- schedule belonging to plaintiff, whereas the defendant claimed property measuring 25 X 50 feet on the north- eastern side as belonging to him. In view of rival contentions and identify and nature of the dispute as afore-said, the parties mutually agreed to get the survey of the properties claimed by them and property belonging to Health Department / Primary Health Centre situated on southern side of 1st item of A-Schedule property measured and identified and accordingly on such survey and measurement, it was found that the entire property of the plaintiff north-south 70 feet and east-west 80 feet identified located in the area

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:39646 RSA No. 266 of 2012

¶55

shown within letters "ABCD" in the produced herewith. Similarly defendants'/respondents' vacant property measuring south-north 25 feet and eastwest 50 feet is identified and located within the area shown in the letters "GBEF" in the rough sketch. The rough sketch enclosed herewith shall form part and parcel of this compromise petition. The plaintiff has already made additional new constructions in "ABCD" area. Accordingly the parties got identified and re-located and have got the dispute resolved between themselves.

¶56

The defendants /respondents agree that this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass orders decreeing the suit holding that the plaintiff/appellant is the owner and in possession and enjoyment of the property measuring north-South 70 feet and EastWest: 80 feet falling within "ABCD" area in the rough sketch, bounded by East: B.H.Road/PWD Road, West: Government school compound, North: "GBEF" area property in the rough sketch belonging to defendants/respondents and water tank and anganawadi kendra and South: Open reserved site for health unit and now Government constructed health unit and to pass orders decreeing that the respondents shall not interfere with plaintiff's/appellant's property shown in "ABCD" area of which plaintiff is the owner.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:39646 RSA No. 266 of 2012

¶59

The plaintiff appellant agree that this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass orders decreeing the suit holding that the respondents are the owner and in possession and enjoyment of the property measuring North-South 25 feet and east-west: 50 feet falling within "GBEF" area in the rough sketch, bounded by East: B.H.Road/PWD Road, West: Government/Panchayat water tank and Anganavadi Kendra, North: Old Barandur road, South: "ABCD" property belonging to plaintiff/appellant and to pass orders decreeing that plaintiff/appellant shall not interfere with defendants/respondents' property shown as falling within "GBEF" of which respondents are the owner. 8. Parties pray this Hon'ble court to pass decree in terms of this compromise petition. The decree passed in terms of compromise petition is executable.

¶60

In view of the settlement of the dispute as above, the plaintiff / Society in the board meetings had resolved to report the settlement of dispute as afore-said and get the appeal disposed of in terms of this compromise petition.

¶61

Wherefore both parties pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to set-aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the courts below

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:39646 RSA No. 266 of 2012

¶63

¶64

passed in O.S No. 197/1998 dt: 25-6- 2010 and R.A No. 206/2010 dt: 15-11-2011 and further this Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass decree afresh in terms of compromise petition, in the ends of justice and equity."

¶65

Compromise petition is accepted. Appeal is

¶66

disposed of in terms of compromise petition.

¶67

Draw decree in terms of compromise petition and sketch map enclosed to the compromise petition be part of the decree.

¶68

In view of the above, IA No.1/2012, does not survive for consideration and it is consigned to records.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Raithara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha v. Manjappa Since Dead by His Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raithara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha v. Manjappa Since Dead by His Lrs

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

Sri. Muninarayanappa Vs Sundaramma @ Akkayamma

Shivalingaiah Vs Chikkathayamma

Shri. M Nataraja Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Putta Gowramma Vs Smt Mahadevamma

Kumbalamma Since Dead by Her Lrs Vs Sri Madaiah S/O Late Sannaiah

Seetha Investments Vs H v Raghavendra