Partly allowed

Mubarak Ali S/O.Abdul Gafar Herekar v. Abdul Hafeez S/O.Raja Ahemad Hakeem

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2023RSA/5017/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal against a decree granting permanent and mandatory injunctions in a civil suit regarding property possession, the High Court upheld the permanent injunction but set aside the mandatory injunction due to delayed filing and laches, confirming the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Regular second appeal allowed in part; order granting mandatory injunction set aside; permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff confirmed.

Mubarak Ali S/O.Abdul Gafar Herekar Vs Abdul Hafeez… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5017 OF 2010 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. MUBARAK ALI S/O. ABDUL GAFAR HEREKAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MULLA GALLI, NANDAGAD, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591302. (BY SRI. R.M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

SHRI. ABDUL HAFEEZ S/O. RAJA AHEMAD HAKEEM, AGE: ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. NANDAGD, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591302.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL NINGAPPA Date: PATTIHAL 2023.12.02 10:20:04 +0530

¶13

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH P. ALLANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED: 01-09-2009, PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) KHANAPUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED: 06-04-2009, PASSED IN O.S.NO.10/1996, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC, KHANAPUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR INJUNCTION.

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The present second appeal by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.35/2008 (Old R.A.No.148/2005) dated 01.09.2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khanapur, whereby, suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction was decreed reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial court in O.S.No.10/1996 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Khanapur dated 16.04.1996.

¶19

This Court while admitting the appeal on

¶20

05.03.2014 has framed the following substantial question of law.

¶21

1. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed a serious error in granting the reliefs of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, when the very title of the plaintiff is seriously disputed?

¶22

1. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed a serious error in ignoring the material evidence on record while reassessing

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶24

the same, thus the judgment of the First Appellate Court is perverse and illegal?

¶25

Smt. R.M.Hiremath, learned counsel appearing

¶26

for the appellant and Sri. Vishwanath P.Allannavar, learned counsel for Sri. Dinesh M.Kulkarni learned counsel appearing for the respondent have been heard on the substantial questions of law framed by this Court.

¶27

The parties herein are referred to as per their

¶28

ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff’s suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the encroachment shown by letters D, D1, D2 and D3 in the hand sketch map and permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him and his agents from interfering with the peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property as mentioned in the plaint is bearing Mandal Panchayath No.248 situated at Mulla Galli, Nandghad and the same is

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶31

fully described in the hand sketch appended to the suit plaint.

¶32

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff which was standing in the name of the grandfather in the record of Mandal Panchayath, Nandgad. The contention of the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff and his family members are the owners and in actual possession, vahiwat and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶33

It is stated that, between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant there was a dispute, the said dispute was resolved mutually and the Mandal Panchyath, Nandgad, with the consent of the defendant effected necessary changes in the record of the Panchyath in respect of the measurement of the suit schedule property and thus, from the said day of the settlement, the plaintiff is in actual possession along with his family members in the suit schedule property. It is the contention that the defendant has encroached in the North-West corner of the

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶35

suit schedule property in the year 1993 and the cause of action for the plaintiff to file a suit arose in the year 1996 when the defendant came to the suit schedule property and disturbed the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and his family members.

¶36

Pursuant to the suit summons issued by the trial Court, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement, inter alia, contending that the deceased grandfather of the defendant had purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 04.10.1917 for valuable consideration and from the date of sale after the death of the grand-father and his father, the defendant are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the open space under the sale deed. It is further averred that the defendant has constructed in the open space purchased by his grand-father, a residential house for himself and his family members bearing VPC No.247B in the year 1988 and further VPC No.247A, long back with due permission from the authority and that the

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶38

¶39

plaintiff has no house adjacent to the said property. The existence of the property alleged by the plaintiff as disclosed in the rough hand sketch is specifically denied.

¶40

The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings,

¶41

framed the following issues:

¶42

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in the possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit?

¶43

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference by the defendant?

¶44

(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged construction made by the defendant in the suit property by encroaching upon the suit property?

¶45

(4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party?

¶46

(5) Whether the suit is time barred?

¶47

(6) Whether the plaintiff entitled to the relief claimed?

¶48

(7) What order? What decree?

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶50

In order to substantiate their claim, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P50. On the other hand, defendant got himself examined as DW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.D1 to D25.

¶51

The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings,

¶52

oral and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that:

¶53

(i) The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit.

¶54

(ii) The plaintiff failed to prove the alleged interference by the defendant.

¶55

(iii) The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant has encroached in the suit schedule property.

¶56

And by the judgment and decree, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶58

Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit,

¶59

the plaintiff preferred appeal before the first appellate Court.

¶60

The first appellate Court, while re-appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence independently, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory and permanent injunction and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

¶61

Aggrieved by the decreeing of the suit of the plaintiff, the present second appeal by the defendant.

¶62

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the first appellate Court has committed a grave error in placing reliance on Ex.P49 – the signature of the defendant on the agreement dated 15.02.1988, without considering that the said document was not marked in evidence and what was marked, was only the signature of defendant and that too in the evidence of the defendant. Learned counsel would contend that the first

¶63

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶64

appellate Court has failed to consider that the suit of the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunction was not maintainable without seeking for declaration, as there was cloud over the title of the plaintiff.

¶65

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the first appellate Court has gone to the extent of stating that it was mandatory on part of the defendant to place positive and acceptable evidence to show that as per the registered sale deed, the name of the defendant’s grand-father was mutated in the revenue records and in the absence of the same, the defendant cannot contend that the plaintiff has no title over the suit schedule property, and would contend that the said findings arrived by the first appellate Court is against the settled proposition of law, that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of the fact which he asserts and even assuming that the defendant has alleged that

¶66

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶67

the agreement was forged, it was not the burden cast upon the defendant.

¶68

Learned counsel for the appellant would

¶69

contend that the first appellate Court has committed serious error in not considering the material evidence on record, while reassessing the same and the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is perverse and illegal.

¶70

In support of her contention, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:

¶71

(i) Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors. Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors.¹ ;

¶72

(ii) UFM Sri Nagesh Vs. Shrikant and Others² ;

¶73

(i) Krothapalli Satyanarayana Vs. Koganti Ramaiah and others³ ;

¶74

(iv) A.V.N. Prasad Vs. Sita Bai Raj Purohit⁴ ;

¶75

1 AIR 2008 SC 901

¶76

2 RSA No.5457/2009, 16.01.2014

¶77

3 AIR 1983 SC 452

¶78

4 2007 (1) Kar.L.J. 216

¶79

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶80

(v) T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M. Mallappa and another⁵ ;

¶81

(vi) Sy. Azhar Sy. Kalandar Vs. State of

¶82

Maharashtra and another⁶ ;

¶83

(vii) Joseph John Peter Sandy Vs. Veronica Thomas Rajkumar and Anr.⁷ ; &

¶84

(viii) Veena Singh (Dead) through LR Vs. The District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) and another⁸

¶85

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff would contend that the first appellate Court has rightly held that the plaintiff need not seek for declaration as the defendant is not claiming title over the plaintiff’s property and would contend that in the absence of any claim by the defendant, the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had to file a suit for declaration is not maintainable.

¶86

5 AIR 2021 SC 4293

¶87

6 AIR 2021 SC 4298

¶88

7 AIR 2013 SC 2028

¶89

8 Civil Appeal No.2929/2022, 10.05.2022

¶90

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶91

Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the resolution at Ex.P26, dated 08.02.1988 was as per the survey which was not objected by the defendant and more particularly in light of the agreement entered into between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant having admitted his signature, which is marked at Ex.P.49.

¶92

According to the learned counsel, the

¶93

agreement was not marked in evidence, however, the signature of the defendant on the agreement was not disputed during the course of his cross-examination and the signature was marked as Ex.P49. Non-marking of the agreement was not raised by the defendant either before the Trial Court or before the first Appellate Court and for the first time, such a contention has been raised before this Court, which is unsustainable.

¶94

Learned counsel would contend that existence, boundary and measurement of MPC No.248 has been established by the plaintiff. Learned counsel takes this

¶95

13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶96

Court to cross-examination of DW1, wherein, the DW1 admits about the entry of the name of the plaintiff and about he having no objection to enter the name of the plaintiff in respect of MPC No.248 and the title of the plaintiff in respect of MPC No.248 is not disputed.

¶97

Learned counsel would contend that the tax paid receipts produced by the plaintiff establish the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. It is the specific contention that, since there is no dispute regarding title by the defendant hence, a simple suit for injunction is maintainable.

¶98

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused judgment and decree of the Courts below including the original records.

¶99

Suit laid by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and

¶100

14 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶101

the open space bearing Mandal Panchyat No.248 situated at Mulla Galli, Nandgad and for a mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment as shown by letters D, D1, D2 &

¶102

D3. The hand sketch map of the plaintiff is marked at

¶103

Ex.P1, which is extracted below for reference:

¶104

NORTH

¶105

PROPERTY OF DEFENDANT

¶106

WEST

¶107

10’ D3
D C
88’
8’
45’
D2
D1
A B
ROAD
57’
MULLA GALLI
N SOUTH
E
ROAD
EAST
Property of Defendant

¶108

The defendant resisted the suit contending that

¶109

the grand-father of the defendant has purchased the property in the year 1917 and in the open space

¶110

15 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶111

purchased, i.e., bearing VPC No.247B & VPC No.247A, a residential house has been constructed way back in the year 1988 with the permission from the authorities. The averments of the written statement finds place at paragraph Nos.3 & 5. The defendant has produced the hand sketch along with written statement, which is marked in evidence as Ex.D1, for reference the same is

¶112

extracted below:

¶113

VPC 246
Herekar
-------------
backyard
13 13.6
VPC
39 VPC 250(1) VPC
defendant defendant 250(2)
247A 40 VPC 247B VPC 249 40.6”
25 Defendant
25
12.6
35
N
Mulla Galli
W E
S
House of Plaintiff
Hasam Khanapur Shakhar Anagolakur

¶114

16 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶115

The plaintiff and defendant have placed reliance

¶116

on the different hand sketch map. If the hand sketch of the plaintiff and hand sketch of the defendant are perused, one fact makes it clear is that the boundaries stated in respect of the property to the Northern side of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has mentioned the property of defendant and to the Southern portion of the suit schedule property, it is mentioned as Mulla Galli. The sketch of the plaintiff compared to the sketch of the defendant, the defendant has conveniently not shown the property of the plaintiff to the southern side of VPC No.247A, whereas to the Southern side a Mulla Galli is shown and this is the same boundaries as per the plaint hand sketch at Ex.P1. Thus, from the said materials makes it clear about the existence of the suit schedule property besides the property of VPC No.247A.

¶117

The plaintiff specifically contended that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and the suit schedule property stood in the name of the

¶118

17 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶119

grandfather of the plaintiff in the revenue records and there was a dispute in between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant and the said dispute was resolved and the Mandal Panchayath, Nandgad by conducting survey with the consent of the defendant effected necessary changes in the record of rights in respect of the measurement of the suit schedule property and accordingly, the measurement was reduced to 57 ft. x 45 ft. from 64 ft. x 40 ft.

¶120

In support of his contention, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P50. In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff that he is in possession, following documents have been relied:

¶121

(i) Ex.P.1 is the hand sketch map, wherein the property shown is at ‘ABCD’ and the encroachment shown as D, D1, D2 & D3 and the extent of measurement shown is 57 ft. x 45 ft. East-West and North-South.

¶122

18 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶123

(ii) Exs.P2 to P18 are the panchayath records from the year 1948-1949 to 1997-1998 pertaining to the suit schedule property showing the name of the grand-father of the plaintiff namely Hasansab Rajesab and the extent of measurement is 64 ft. x 40 ft.

¶124

(iii) Exs.P16 & P17 pertaining to VPC No.247A measurement shown is 34 ft. x 48 ft. showing the name of Mubark Ali Abdul Gafar Herekar.

¶125

(iv) Ex.P18 also pertains to VPC No.247 showing the name of Mubark Ali Abdul Gafar Herekar.

¶126

(v) Ex.P32 is an application given by defendant to put up construction in respect of 247/A in the year 1992 and again in the year 1998 another application for construction in VPC No.247/A, objections are been filed to the application by the plaintiff.

¶127

(vi) Ex.P.26 is the resolution of the year 1988, wherein panchyath records, the measurement of VPC No.248 is been

¶128

19 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶129

reduced in light of mozani / measurement and it indicates the measurement of the property as 57 ft. x 45 ft.

¶130

(vii) Ex.P49 is another document which is an admitted signature of the defendant on the agreement, according to which the Mandal panchyath has entered the extent of land in respect of VPC No.248.

¶131

The specific contention of the plaintiff is that the agreement was entered, which is styled as Kararu Patra, and the defendant has admitted the signature on the document, which is marked at Ex.P49. When the signature of the defendant was not disputed, the question of the plaintiff proving the agreement-Kararu Patra would not arise.

¶132

The initial burden was on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement, the defendant having admitted his signature on the agreement, though a contention having been raised by the defendant that there was a fraud played by the Panchayat Clerk, perusal of the

¶133

20 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶134

written statement does not even whisper about the particulars of fraud and in the absence of the same, any amount of evidence would not come to the aid of the defendant and the agreement entered between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be doubted and the defendant having admitted his signature on the document, when such being so, the plaintiff has proved the execution of the agreement and burden was on the defendant to prove the circumstances under which the document/ agreement was executed.

¶135

The defendant has not specifically disputed the title of the plaintiff. Perusal of the written statement and the categorical admission of the defendant in his cross-examination establishes that there is no serious dispute about the title of the plaintiff. The relevant portion of cross-examination of DW1 is extracted below:

¶136

“�� . � �� , !"#� �� $%� &�� '� () ��* +, +, ��-�).�� . �� / !"#� ��0 1�2 ��34!� 567 8)�� . 1917 �� )9.: ��;< ==< >?@

¶137

21 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶138

��A!B CD E3��A<!�, �� .

¶139

��0 �� F�� .G= H��;< :IJ�K!L��MN �; 1�2 .��;< �L)�� . OM!�, � 8/P 1�2 ?�QR�� . �� S�0 T; UV�3 W�$=< '�� UV�3 5XY : 248 � ��/ .=< H��;< :IJ �K!L��,!B �; CD E3��A!�, �� . Z��[ UV�3�� Q5XY�\�!�\F8��]^1�).�� . �� Z : 248 MN _�` +, +, 5XY� ')]B ==/a)3�� . OM!�,��b')�� .”

¶140

When there is no dispute about the title, the

¶141

question of plaintiff seeking declaration would not be a proper remedy and the contention of the appellant - defendant that the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration is not sustainable, since there is no cloud over the title of the plaintiff. The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has absolutely no quarrel that the plaintiff who has come to the Court alleging that defendant had executed an agreement in his favour, the defendant having denied it, the burden was on

¶142

the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had executed an agreement and not on the defendant to prove the negative.

¶143

22 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶144

However in the instant case, the signature on

¶145

the agreement was not in dispute, what was disputed by the defendant is the manner in which the document is executed. No materials nor any corroborative evidence is produced by the defendant to substantiate his contention when the execution of the document was not disputed the plaintiff has proved the existence of the agreement and the burden was on the defendant to prove the circumstances under which the document was executed. Thus, the plaintiff has proved the execution of the agreement between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant.

¶146

No doubt in a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction, though Court can hold that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight forward, the Court may decide upon the title of the parties, but however, it has to be held that such cases are exception, to the

¶147

23 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶148

normal rule that question of title will not be decided in a suit for injunction.

¶149

No genuine dispute is raised by the defendant regarding title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, plaintiff’s title over the suit schedule property is free from cloud and the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff was very much maintainable. The averment in the written statement, more particularly at paragraph Nos.3 & 5, the categorical admission of DW1 in his crossexamination and the material placed by the plaintiff establishes that the defendant has not disputed the title of the plaintiff and the first appellate Court was justified in granting the decree of permanent injunction.

¶150

The Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Others⁹ has held at paragraph Nos.15 & 16 under what circumstances, the plaintiff has to initiate the suit for

¶151

9 (2008) 4 SCC 594

¶152

24 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶153

declaration and other reliefs. Paragraph Nos.15 & 16 reads

¶154

as under:

¶155

“15. In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and the defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Where the property is a building or building with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiff may prove physical or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through his family members or agents or lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a land without structures, as for example an agricultural land, possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally.

¶156

But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the court may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the court should not decide the issue

¶157

25 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶158

of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a fullfledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.”

¶159

The Apex Court held in the above decision that a simple suit for injunction is maintainable and declaration need not be filed if there is no cloud over the title of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the present suit for injunction is maintainable.

¶160

The decision placed by the appellant counsel in the case of T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M. Mallappa and another¹⁰ , the Apex Court has held that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to the title, the Court may relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title instead of deciding the issue in a suit for bare injunction. However, since the defendant has not disputed the title of the plaintiff, the question of relegating the parties to file a comprehensive suit for declaration would not hold the field in the present case.

¶161

10 AIR 2021 SC 4293

¶162

26 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶163

The prayer for mandatory injunction is a failure

¶164

on the part of the plaintiff as the plaintiff has not approached the Court within the reasonable time, the plaintiff himself is not certain as to when the defendant has put up construction over the suit schedule property. The delay and laches on part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled for mandatory injunction, as rightly held by the trial Court. The first appellate Court has lost sight of the said aspect and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction.

¶165

The Apex Court in the case of Krothapalli Satyanarayana Vs. Koganti Ramaiah and others¹¹ has

¶166

held that the failure of the plaintiff to approach the Court after nine years and seeking to removal made after four years thereafter, the Court declined to direct its removal as the plaintiff was guilty of acquiescence.

¶167

11 AIR 1983 SC 452

¶168

27 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶169

In the present case, the plaintiff has proved

¶170

that he is in possession over the suit schedule property. However, the plea of mandatory injunction is failed to be established by the plaintiff.

¶171

The first appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction and however, directing the defendant to remove the encroachment over the suit schedule property warrants interference. In light of the same, this Court is of the considered view that answering the substantial questions of law, this Court is of a considered view that the first appellate Court has committed serious error in granting the relief of mandatory injunction, however, there is no error in granting the relief of permanent injunction, the material on record establishes that the first appellate Court has ignored the material evidence on record while reassessing the judgment of the trial Court granting mandatory injunctions and the first appellate Court’s order

¶172

28 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13850 RSA No. 5017 of 2010

¶173

warrants interference to that extent and accordingly, this

¶174

Court pass the following:

¶175

ORDER

¶176

(i) The regular second appeal by the defendant is hereby allowed in part.

¶177

(ii) The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court granting mandatory injunction is hereby set aside and granting of the permanent injunction in

¶178

favour of the plaintiff stands confirmed.

¶179

Sd/JUDGE

¶180

EM & VNP / CT: UMD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45

Mubarak Ali S/O.Abdul Gafar Herekar v. Abdul Hafeez S/O.Raja Ahemad Hakeem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubarak Ali S/O.Abdul Gafar Herekar v. Abdul Hafeez S/O.Raja Ahemad Hakeem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Supriya K N W/O Sri Nitin K N Vs Shr Nitin K N S/O Shri Cr K Nagaraj

The Assistant Commissioner Cum Vs S.K. Mallikarjuna S/O S.K. Dasappa

The Assistant Commissioner Cum Vs S.Y. Raja Shekharappa S/O Kattegouda

Sri Ramangouda S/O Basanagouda Kurahatti Vs Smt. Channamma W/O Sharanappa Banigol

Mrs. Shruti Salimath Vs Virupakshayya Hiremath

Smt.Madhu @ Madhumathi Vs Yamanappa S/O Hanamappa Arakeri