Dismissed

Secretary v. S Mallappa

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2023RSA/527/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Second Appeal, the appellant, a Gram Panchayat, challenged the lower courts' decree in favor of the plaintiff regarding title and injunction over a suit site. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff's title documents had presumption value while the appellant failed to produce specific pleadings or cogent evidence to rebut the claim, rendering the appeal devoid of me

What did the court decide?

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

Secretary Vs S Mallappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38322 RSA No. 527 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2016 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SECRETARY , MN KOTE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MN KOTE VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 102.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

S. MALLAPPA,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE. SANJEEVAIAH,

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA ANKAIAH Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

UDDEHOSAKERE,

¶15

NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 102.

¶16

RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O DODDAIAH,

¶17

RANGAIAH

¶18

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,

¶19

NANJAIAH,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:38322 RSA No. 527 of 2016

¶23

S/O LATE RANGAIAH,

¶24

CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O CHIKKANARASAIAH,

¶25

LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O LATE GANGANNA,

¶26

RATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O LATE GANGANNA.

¶27

LOKESH,

¶28

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGANNA,

¶29

LAKSHMIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGANNA,

¶30

SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGANNA,

¶31

MANGALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, D/O LATE GANGANNA,

¶32

CHANNAKESHAVA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, S/O LATE GANGANNA,

¶33

SAVITHA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

¶34

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38322 RSA No. 527 of 2016

¶35

D/O LATE GANGANNA

¶36

(SL. NOS. 12 AND 13 SINCE MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER LAKSHMIDEVAMMA)

¶37

MALLAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O. CHIKKANNA

¶38

SL. NOS. 2 TO 14 ARE RESIDENTS OF UDDEHOSAKERE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 102.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 TO R11 AND R14 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R12 AND R13 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R6)

¶41

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.09.2015 PASSED IN R.A NO.87/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2009 PASSED IN O.S NO.116/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., GUBBI.

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:38322 RSA No. 527 of 2016

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

The captioned Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.1 assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration of title and injunction is decreed by both the Courts.

¶47

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

¶48

are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶49

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶50

The subject matter of the suit is a site bearing katha number nil, measuring east-west 24 1/2 yards and northsouth 24 1/2 yards, situated at Uddehasakere village, Nitur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk. The plaintiff claimed that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule

¶51

property and has inheritated the property from his ancestor. It is a specific case of the petitioner that the suit site was purchased by the grand mother in a public auction on 21.04.1938 and the then Tahasildar issued a

¶52

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38322 RSA No. 527 of 2016

¶53

grant certificate on 15.06.1938. Therefore, plaintiff contended that he has inheritated the property left behind by his grandmother and is in actual and peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit site. The present suit is filed alleging that defendants are continuously interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment with the suit schedule property and an attempt is also made to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

¶54

Defendants on receipt of summons, have contested the proceedings. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and contended that the claim of plaintiff is based on a concocted document. The defendants seriously disputed the title of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

¶55

5. Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their

¶56

respective claims have led in oral and documentary evidence.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:38322 RSA No. 527 of 2016

¶59

The Trial Court, having assessing the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit by answering issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative. The Trial Court, referring to the grant certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.1, held that the plaintiff has succeeded that he is the absolute owner and in lawful possession over the schedule

¶60

property. Referring to other cogent evidence on record, the Trial Court recorded a finding that defendants are interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and decreed the suit.

¶61

Defendant No.1 feeling aggrieved by the

¶62

judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The Appellate Court has independently assessed the voluminous records, produced by both parties. The Appellate Court, while independently assessing the material on record, has also come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating that Bhadramma, who is the grandmother, has purchased the property in a public auction conducted

¶63

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:38322 RSA No. 527 of 2016

¶65

on 21.04.1938. The appellate Court, on re-accessing the entire evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his right and title over the property in question. While examining the rebuttal evidence, the Appellate Court was not inclined to take cognizance of documents placed on record by the defendants. Categorical findings are recorded by the Appellate Court that documents relied on by the defendants would not come to the aid of defendants in substantiating the defence. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. These concurrent findings are under challenge.

¶66

Heard learned counsel appearing for the defendants and learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

¶67

The plaintiff is asserting right and title over the

¶68

property in question based on a grant certificate dated 21.04.1938. On examining the averments made in the written statement, this Court would find that, except

¶69

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:38322 RSA No. 527 of 2016

¶70

denying plaintiff's case, the defendants have not specifically pleaded as to how defendant No.1/Gram Panchayath has semblance of right and title over the suit site. During trial, the defendants have tried to improve their case by contending that the property covered under the 1938 grant certificate and the one indicated in the plaint schedule are totally different. It is a trite law that any amount of evidence in the absence of pleadings cannot be looked into, and said documentary evidence has no evidential value for want of pleadings. Both the Courts referring to Ex.P.1, which is a grant certificate of the year 1938, have come to the conclusion that the document, being more than 30 years old, has presumption value. To counter this grant certificate, defendants, except denial, have not produced any cogent and clinching rebuttal evidence so as to displace the plaintiff's case. In the absence of title documents, this Court is of the view that both the Courts were justified in excepting the claim made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is supported by title documents, while the defendant's edifice of defence is

¶71

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC:38322 RSA No. 527 of 2016

¶73

based on an outright denial of the plaintiff's case. Except denying the plaintiff's case, the defendants have not placed any title documents to demonstrate that the suit site was originally owned by the State Government and the same was handed over to the Grama Panchayat. The defendants are banking heavily on observations made by the Assistant Commissioner in mutation proceedings. It is equally trite law that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate property rights. Any observations made by the Assistant Commissioner are of no consequence. The findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner in Exs.D.1 and 2 will not displace the plaintiff's case, which is based on a grant certificate, which is of the year 1938.

¶74

In the light of discussion made supra, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly

¶75

dismissed .

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC:38322 RSA No. 527 of 2016

¶77

10 -

¶78

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

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK

Secretary v. S Mallappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary v. S Mallappa

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

Shri. Shatsthala Brahma Vs K. Brahmasuraya

V. Venkatagiri Vs Sri.v. Lokesh

Smt v Pramila Vs Sri v Lokesh