Dismissed

Shankarappa @ Shankaraiah v. Sri. H.N. Muddukrishna

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023RSA/507/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal regarding a suit for declaration of title and injunction, the High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below. The court held that the plaintiffs successfully established their title based on sale deeds and rejected the defendant's pleas of adverse possession and limitation.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed; pending applications were disposed of.

Shankarappa @ Shankaraiah Vs Sri. H.N. Muddukrishna — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHANKARAPPA @ SHANKARAIAH, S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S,

¶9

1(A). SRI. RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶10

1(B). SRI. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶11

1(C). SRI. BASAVARJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by GAYATHRI P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

1(D). SRI. MUDDUKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶14

NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE THE SONS OF LATE SHANKARAIAH @ SHANKARAPPA, ALL R/AT MARALENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABAHOBLI, HANABE POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK.

¶15

1(E). SMT. S. RANGAMMA, D/O LATE SHANKARAIAH @ SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 50, 25TH CROSS,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶18

6TH BLOCK, UPPARALLI, JAYANAGAR,

¶19

BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶20

1(F). SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI, D/O LATE SHANKARAIAH @ SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1265 (OLD), NEW NO. 157, R.C.C. BAR BENDER, T.B., (Ex.,) BADAVANE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.N. SATHYA RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SRI. H.N. MUDDUKRISHNA, S/O LATE H.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. H.N. JAYASIMHA, S/O LATE H. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶26

SRI. H.N. MARUTHI, S/O LATE H.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT VITOBA TEMPLE STREET, 5TH WARD, DODDABALLAPURA NAGAR.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶29

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.10030/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DIST., AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU (R)

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶32

DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.168/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DODDABALLAPUR.

¶33

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

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The captioned second appeal is filed by the original defendant-Shankarappa @ Shankaraiah, assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration of title and injunction and also declaration that the decree passed in suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.137/2002 is not binding on them is decreed.

¶36

2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties

¶37

are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶38

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶39

The plaintiffs are asserting title over the suit land measuring 12 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.16. The plaintiffs

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶42

contended that their grandfather, namely, Patel Hanumegowda, purchased 12 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.16 under registered sale deed dated 14.09.1936. After his death, plaintiff's father, H.Narasimhaiah, inherited the suit property and therefore, plaintiffs, by way of inheritance, are asserting title, possession and exclusive enjoyment of suit schedule properties.

¶43

The present suit is filed alleging that defendant, without impleading plaintiffs, has managed to file a suit for injunction in O.S.No.137/2002 against Tahasildar, Doddaballapur and the Secretary, Grama Panchayath, on the premise that the said authorities are attempting to lay a road in the properties owned by him and Sy.No.16 is also shown as the subject matter for the declaration and injunction. Therefore, plaintiffs, while asserting title over the property, have also sought a declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.137/2002, which was decreed on 01.06.2006 is not binding on them.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶46

The original defendant, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendant admitted filing a suit in O.S.No.137/2002. The defendant has contested the suit by setting up an oral agreement. Defendant claimed that he is in possession based on an oral agreement executed by the plaintiff's father-Narasimhaiah, in 1972. Defendant contended that plaintiff's father received the entire sale consideration amount, assuring that he would execute the sale deed in respect of the suit lands. Defendants also claimed that Narasimhaiah handed over possession in favour of the present defendant. The defendant also contended that the present suit is barred by limitation. The defendant has also questioned the maintainability of the present suit and has specifically contended that the present suit is barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC., in the light of decree passed in O.S.No.363/2002. The defendant contended that plaintiffs sought possession of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.16 in O.S.No.363/2002. Therefore,

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶49

defendant claimed plaintiffs ought to have claimed relief of declaration in respect of the remaining portion in Sy.No.16, which is the subject matter of the present suit.

¶50

Plaintiffs, to substantiate their title and

¶51

possession, have let in oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiffs have produced title documents, which are marked as Exs.P.1 to 4. Records of rights are produced to demonstrate that plaintiffs are in lawful possession. The plaintiffs have also placed reliance on judgment rendered in O.S.No.363/2002, which is confirmed by this Court in R.S.A.No.1763/2008.

¶52

Defendant, has set up a plea of oral agreement

¶53

executed by plaintiffs father, and has further alleged that plaintiffs father delivered possession pursuant to the oral agreement and though alternate plea of adverse possession is set up by the defendant, the original defendant-Shankarappa, for reasons best known to him,

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶56

has not chosen to step into the witness box to substantiate his claim.

¶57

The Trial Court, referring to title documents coupled with entries in the revenue records and in absence of contest and rebuttal evidence let in by the defendant, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 partly in the affirmative. While answering issue No.1 in the affirmative, the Trial Court, referring to the title deeds obtained by plaintiffs ancestor at an undisputed time, held that plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating their ancestors title over the suit land. While answering issue No.2 partly in the affirmative, the Trial Court held that plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their title that they are in lawful possession excluding 3 acres, which was the subject matter of O.S.No.363/2002, wherein plaintiffs have sought possession from defendant.

¶58

The defendant's plea in regard to adverse possession was dealt while dealing with issue No.4 and

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶61

additional issue No.3. The Trial Court, while dismissing the counterclaim of the defendant, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, declaring that plaintiffs are absolute owners and in possession of suit land excluding 3 acres of land, which is the subject matter of decree passed in O.S.No.363/2002. The Trial Court granted injunction excluding 3 acres. The Trial Court also granted a declaration declaring that judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.137/2002 in favour of defendant, which was admittedly filed against the State and legal authorities, are not binding on plaintiffs rights.

¶62

Defendant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The Appellate Court independently assessed the entire evidence on record. On an independent assessment of the records, the Appellate Court concurred with the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶65

Heard learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the original defendant. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

¶66

The plaintiffs are asserting title over Sy.No.16 based on four title deeds, which are marked as Exs.P.1 to 4. Both the courts, referring to these title documents, have come to the conclusion that plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating that their grandfather-Patel Hanumegowda, purchased 12 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.16. The present suit is strongly resisted by the defendant on two counts. Firstly, the defendant claimed that the present suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.168/2006 is not maintainable on the ground that it is hit by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC in the light of decree passed in O.S.No.363/2002.

¶67

It is evident from the judgment rendered by

¶68

both the Courts that plaintiffs filed the suit seeking relief of possession in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.16

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶71

against the defendant by instituting the suit in O.S.No.363/2002. It appears that defendant contested the said suit. Plaintiffs suit seeking possession in O.S.No.363/2002 was decreed on 14.02.2007.

¶72

The defendant, who suffered a decree in O.S.No.137/2002 without impleading the plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the State and local authorities and the suit is filed alleging that local authorities are attempting to form a road in the properties owned by the defendant herein. This suit was decreed on 01.06.2006 and the subject matter of O.S.No.137/2002 is the entire extent, which measures 11 acres 23 guntas excluding 21 guntas of kharab land.

¶73

Insofar as the plaintiffs title over the suit land is concerned, the said issue does not require a detailed enquiry at the hands of this Court. Both the Courts referring to title documents and in absence of rebuttal evidence coupled with pleadings in the written statement,

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶76

wherein defendant is tracing his rights through plaintiffs by way of an oral agreement and by way of a plea of adverse possession, clearly establishes the plaintiffs title over the suit land. The plaintiffs have discharged their initial burden by producing title deeds, which are marked as Exs.P.1 to 4. The contention of defendant that plaintiffs' ancestor has not acquired title over the suit land on the ground that it is inam land and there is no grant order cannot be looked into as the sale deeds are of the year 1936. Moreover, there is no rebuttal evidence let in by the defendant. If plaintiffs are asserting and tracing right through a sale deed obtained by the grandfather way back in 1936, this Court is of the view that plaintiffs have successfully established their possessary title even otherwise. Therefore, I am of the view that both the Courts were justified in holding that plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit land measuring 12 acres 4 guntas and justified in granting injunction thereby restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' possession, excluding 3 acres of land, which is in the possession of the defendant and there

¶77

12 -

¶78

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶79

is a decree against him to hand over 3 acres of land to the plaintiffs.

¶80

If defendant has consciously not impleaded plaintiffs in O.S.No.137/2002 and if he has obtained a declaration of title on 01.06.2006, then this Court is more than satisfied that both the Courts were justified in holding that the present suit filed on 04.08.2006 is very much maintainable and the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC are not at all applicable. The plaintiffs had an independent cause of action as the defendant secured a decree in O.S.No.137/2002 on 01.06.2006. Based on the decree, it seems that defendant was asserting right and title to the entire extent and this compelled the plaintiffs to seek a declaration to the entire extent. Both the Courts taking cognizance of the decree for possession passed in O.S.No.363/2002, have moulded the reliefs; relief of declaration though granted to the entire extent; relief of perpetual injunction is granted excluding 3 acres.

¶81

13 -

¶82

NC: 2023:KHC:43551 RSA No. 507 of 2016

¶83

In the light of discussion made supra, the grounds urged in the appeal memo do not in any way lead to any substantial question of law which requires consideration at the hands of this Court. Plaintiffs, by producing title documents, have succeeded in substantiating their title and possession, excluding 3 acres. Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed .

¶84

In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

HDK

¶87

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK

Shankarappa @ Shankaraiah v. Sri. H.N. Muddukrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankarappa @ Shankaraiah v. Sri. H.N. Muddukrishna

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.Shivalingaiah Vs Smt.Mahadevamma

P. Gokuldas Bhat, Vs Sri. Laxmi Venkatramana Temple

Sri. Venkataswamy @ Venkataswamy Reddy Vs Sri. B. Venkataswamy Reddy

C S Nagaraja Vs Sri J Raviprasad

Visveswaraiah Iron & Steel Ltd. Vs Wild Life Conservation Action Team

Smt Sarojamma Vs Sri Shivaji