Second appeal filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging dismissal of their suit for injunction regarding property possession. Court upheld concurrent findings that plaintiffs sold property to defendant, overruling their gift deed claim, and dismissed the appeal.
The regular second appeal is dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2016 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT VIJAYARANGASWAMY TEMPLE STREET OLD TOWN, BETHAMANGALA, BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY G.P.A HOLDER, SRI. S. NOVA, S/O A. SAMUVEL, R/AT NEW EXTENSION, BETHAMANGALA, BANGARPET TALUK - 563 114.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHESHADRI N.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BOTH ARE R/AT: CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA, 8TH CROSS, NEAR SAPALAMMA TEMPLE, JAYANAGAR, KOLAR - 563 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. JAWAHAR BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A AND B); R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2015 PASSED IN RA NO.86/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KGF., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2012 PASSED IN OS NO.111/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KGF.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:43102 RSA No. 372 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, who have questioned the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein plaintiffs suit for injunction simpliciter filed in O.S.No.111/2008 is dismissed by both the Courts.
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
The plaintiffs have filed the present suit by contending that plaintiff No.2 has executed registered gift deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 23.08.2006 and based on registered gift deed, plaintiff No.1 claims to be in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The present suit is filed alleging that the defendants, without any semblance of right and title, are interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession.
tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.1, on the contrary, claimed that the suit schedule property was originally owned by plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.1 further claimed that plaintiff No.1 sold the suit property under registered sale deed dated 29.11.1999. Defendant No.1 claimed that pursuant to the sale, plaintiff No.1 delivered possession and therefore, she specifically contended that she has acquired a valid right and title and that she is in lawful possession. Defendant No.1 therefore contended that plaintiff No.2 had no title to gift the property in favour of plaintiff No.1.
respective claim, have let in oral and documentary evidence.
particularly the title deeds, which are marked as Exs.D.1 and 2, held that plaintiff No.1 has sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.1 and the same is evident from Ex.D.2. Referring to Ex.D.1, the Trial Court found that the father of plaintiff No.1 purchased 2 guntas of land out of a total extent measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.528. The Trial Court, referring to admissions elicited in cross-examination of P.W.1, found that plaintiff No.1 has admitted that he has sold 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.528, which originally belonged to his father. Plaintiff No.1 further admitted that, pursuant to sale, defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit land. Referring to title documents, more particularly the sale deed obtained by plaintiff No.1's father vide Ex.D.1 and the subsequent sale deed executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. The Trial Court further held that plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that they are in lawful possession. Consequently, suit is dismissed.
decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, as a final fact-finding authority, has independently assessed the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties. The Appellate Court, on re-assessing the evidence, found that plaintiffs have not disputed the genuineness of Ex.D.1. The Appellate Court held that if plaintiff No.1's father has purchased only 2 guntas of land under Ex.D.1, which is produced by defendant No.1 and if the same is dealt and meddled by plaintiff No.1 by selling the same in favour of defendant No.1 under registered sale deed, the registered gift deed executed by plaintiff No.2 in favour of plaintiff No.1 will not create any right. Taking cognizance of rebuttal evidence let in by defendant No.1, the Appellate Court was also of the view that plaintiffs have failed to prove their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. These concurrent judgments are under challenge.
NC: 2023:KHC:43102 RSA No. 372 of 2016
plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
successfully substantiated by adducing clinching rebuttal evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts. I do not find any infirmities or perversities in the findings or conclusions recorded by both the Courts on issue Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed .
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding title and possession, based on sale deeds and admissions, warrant interference in a second appeal.
BABU RAJENDRAN
SMT. RUKKAMMA
SUSHEELAMMA
SMT. UMA
SMT. B.C. JYOTHI
SMT. AMARA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
