Dismissed

Shri. Shatsthala Brahma v. K. Brahmasuraya

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2023RSA/501/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a second appeal filed by a third party claiming tenant possession. The Court held that since the appellant was not a party to the original injunction suit and the decree was against the original defendants, the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the judgment. The appeal accordingly stood dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed as the appellant was not a party to the original suit and lacked locus standi to challenge the decree.

Shri. Shatsthala Brahma Vs K. Brahmasuraya — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:38317 RSA No. 501 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2016 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. SHATSTHALA BRAHMA MRUTHUNJAYA DEESIKENDRA SHIVACHARYA SWAMIJI GURU-GURUSIDDHA SHIVACHARYA SWAMIJI @ REVANASIDDHA SHIVACHARYA SWAMY, RAJAGURU HIREMATH, MAJIRE BANDAGADDE POST: KELADI, TALUKA : SAGAR

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.MAHABALESH.K.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G G CHAGASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

K. BRAHMASURAYA S/O DHARANAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶14

SMT.SUSHEELAMMA

¶15

1. W/O K.BRAMHASURYA AGE: MAJOR

¶16

SRI.NAGARAJ S/O K.BRAMHASURYA AGE: MAJOR

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38317 RSA No. 501 of 2016

¶18

SHANTARAJ

¶19

S/O K.BRAMHASURYA AGE: MAJOR

¶20

SRI.JEENADATTA S/O K.BRAMHASURYA DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶21

SMT.VIDYA W/O JINADATHA

¶22

AGE: MAJOR

¶23

VIJEETA S/O JINADATHA, MAJOR

¶24

AKSHATHA D/O JINADATHA AGE: MAJOR

¶25

DHARMAIAH S/O K.BRAMHASURYA

¶26

AGE: MAJOR

¶27

SUJATHA W/O SRIKANTHA, AGE: MAJOR

¶28

SRIMATHI W/O VARADAMANA, AGE: MAJOR

¶29

RESPONDENT 1 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT KELADI VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.

¶30

DR.MAHESHWARA SHIVACHARA

¶31

AGE: MAJOR SWAMAGALU SWAMIJI OF BADAMI SHIVAPPAIAH MATHADHIPATHI ADDRESSED AT BANDAGADDE, VILLAGE KELADI

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38317 RSA No. 501 of 2016

¶33

TALUKA: SAGAR SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577201.

¶34

M.JAGADISH

¶35

AGE: MAJOR S/O MARIBASAPPAGOUDA, HIRALE MARURU, LINGADAHALLI, POST: M.L.HALLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577201.

¶36

M.S.GOWDA S/O NOT KNOWN AGE: MAJOR, OCC:ADVOCATE R/O OPP TO TIMBER DEPOT BEHIND DFO OFFICE SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SMT.VIJETHA.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R12; V/O DTD: 20.08.2019 NOTICE TO R1 TO 9 IS D/W)

¶39

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC.,1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2015 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR IN RA.NO.161/2012 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2007 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN.) SAGAR FOR IMPLEADING RESPONDENT 10 AND 11 ARE PLAINTIFFS IN OS.NO.27/1991 AND RESTORE THE APPELLANT NAME AS PLAINTIFF IN THE SAID SUIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:38317 RSA No. 501 of 2016

¶42

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

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

The captioned second appeal is filed not by the original defendant but by appellant in R.A.No.161/2012 who is asserting and claiming that he is in actual possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in the capacity of tenant. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein who was arrayed as appellant No.1 in R.A.No.161/2012.

¶45

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶46

The plaintiffs instituted a suit for injunction simplicitor in O.S.No.27/1991 against the original defendant K.Brahmasuraya. The said original defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record who contested the suit. The plaintiffs case is that the suit schedule property is owned by the plaintiff No.1-Mutt represented by its Matadipati. The plaintiffs further contended that the suit schedule property is a house site

¶47

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38317 RSA No. 501 of 2016

¶48

classified as Khaneshumari in the village records. The plaintiffs alleged that original defendant Brahmasuraya S/o Dharanappa had no semblance of right over the property in question and based on some concocted documents is interfering with the Mutt's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit site. A suit for injunction is filed by the Mutt alleging that original defendant Brahmasuraya is interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession.

¶49

The original defendant during his lifetime filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The original defendant, however, claimed that he is in exclusive possession as tenant and therefore, disputed the Mutt's assertion that it is in possession over the suit site.

¶50

The plaintiffs and defendants contested the suit and to substantiate their respective claim let in oral and documentary evidence.

¶51

The trial Court on examining the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 3

¶52

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38317 RSA No. 501 of 2016

¶53

and 4 in the affirmative. The trial Court held that plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing that plaintiff No.2 is the Manager of the plaintiff-Mutt. While answering issue No.3 in the affirmative, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving their lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Consequently, suit is decreed and the defendants are restrained from interfering with plaintiff's possession. The trial Court while decreeing the suit has taken cognizance of cogent and clinching evidence let in by the plaintiffs. While referring to Form No.7 filed by the original defendant vide Ex.P-14, coupled with the order of the Land Tribunal, Sagar vide Ex.P-20 found that the claim of original defendant in Form No.7 insofar as suit site is concerned is rejected. Referring to cogent and clinching evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, trial Court held that Mutt has succeeded in establishing its right and title and its lawful possession. The trial Court has also recorded a categorical finding that interference is proved by the plaintiffs by producing cogent evidence.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:38317 RSA No. 501 of 2016

¶56

The present appellant who is not party to the suit strangely has questioned the judgment and decree passed in a bare suit for injunction. The appellant who is not party to the suit alleged that he is in possession of the suit site as a tenant.

¶57

The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence held that the present appellant who is a third party has failed to establish his actual possession and enjoyment over the suit property in the capacity of tenant. The Appellate Court held that no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment rendered by the trial Court. This second appeal is by the third parties.

¶58

Perused the grounds urged in the second appeal and the judgment rendered by both the Courts.

¶59

It is trite law that plaintiff is a dominus litus . The present appellant is not party to the suit. The original defendants have not questioned the decree passed in O.S.No.27/1991. On examining the records, this Court is of the view that Appellate Court was not justified in even

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:38317 RSA No. 501 of 2016

¶62

entertaining the appeal filed by the appellant herein. If appellant is not party to the injunction suit, he had no locus to challenge the decree for perpetual injunction granted against the defendants. The trial Court referring to cogent and clinching evidence has come to conclusion that plaintiff-Mutt is the owner of site and it is found to be in lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Referring to cogent evidence on record, trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that defendants are found to be guilty of interfering with Mutt's peaceful possession. If the suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed, the present appellant who is not party to the suit cannot seek adjudication of their possessory rights. The decree for perpetual injunction is against the defendants and not against the appellant. This Court is unable to understand as to how appellant could have questioned the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.27/1991. Therefore, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC:38317 RSA No. 501 of 2016

¶64

¶65

Second appeal is devoid of merits and

¶66

accordingly stands dismissed.

¶67

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

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Shri. Shatsthala Brahma v. K. Brahmasuraya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shatsthala Brahma v. K. Brahmasuraya

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.Ravi Kumar Vs Sri.Jayashankara

Sri Huligowda Vs Smt Ramamma

Sri. Shivalingappa Vs Sri. Thimmappa

Secretary Vs S Mallappa

V. Venkatagiri Vs Sri.v. Lokesh

Smt v Pramila Vs Sri v Lokesh