Dismissed

Smt. Sarojamma v. Smt Suvarnamma

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023RSA/531/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two second appeals arising from a property suit for declaration and possession of a farm house. The High Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, and imposed costs of Rs.25,000 each on the appellants for frivolous litigation.

What did the court decide?

The appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000 each on defendants 7, 8 and 11 payable to the plaintiff.

Smt. Sarojamma Vs Smt Suvarnamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

R.S.A NO. 531 OF 2023 C/W

¶7

R.S.A NO. 853 OF 2023

¶8

IN RSA NO.531/2023 BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . SMT. SAROJAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARA HANJI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT HANJI CHANDAN SHEKAR NIVASA, GANDHARVA NAGARA, NEW MANDLI, SHIVAMOGGA-577202

¶11

2 . SRI ARAVINDA HANJI

¶12

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HANJI CHANDAN SHEKAR NIVASA, GANDHARVA NAGARA, NEW MANDLI, SHIVAMOGGA-577202

¶13

...APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI.VASANTH KUMAR H T, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT SUVARNAMMA , W/O LATE S BASAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶17

¶18

1 . K B MANJUNATHA S/O LATE S BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RTD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KEB, APPAJI, 8^TH BLOCK, 10^TH CROSS, SHARAVATHI NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶19

2 . SMT RATHNA W/O DR BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, C/O SRINATHA BASAPPA KOLAMBI, NO 18, WEITERIA COURT, PINCATAWAY, NEW JERSEY N.J.008854 USA

¶20

3 . SMT POORNIMA W/O MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O RTD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KEB, APPAJI, 8^TH BLOCK, 10^TH CROSS, SHARAVATHI NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶21

4 . SRINATHA BASAPPA KOLAMBI S/O LATE S. BASAPPA, NO 18, WEITERIA COURT, PINCATAWAY, NEW JERSEY, N J 008854 USA

¶22

5 . SRI VIJAY KUMAR HANJI S/O SRI VEERABHADRA HANJI, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS SMT GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR HANJI, R/O DOOR NO 23, SRI VEERABHADRA, 1ST MAIN, II STAGE, DEVARAJ URS NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577006

¶23

¶24

6 . SMT REKHA HANJI V R/O DOOR NO 422, GANGA, 22ND MAIN, 2ND STAGE, J P NAGARA, MYSORE-570008

¶25

7 . SMT LEELA HANJI D.NO 32, GANGA, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, KENGERI, NEAR CHECK POST, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560060

¶26

8 . SMT PARVATHAMMA HANJI C/O REKHA HANJI, DOOR NO 42, GANGA, 22ND MAIN, 2ND STAGE, J P NAGARA, MYSORE-570008

¶27

9 . SMT SHAKUNTHALA HANJI R/O DOOR NO 879, AKSHITHA NILAYA, 23RD MAIN, 2ND STAGE, J P NAGARA, MYSORE-570008

¶28

10 . SRI PRAFULLACHANDRA HANJI V S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR HANJI, R/O DOOR NO 23, SRI VEERABHADRA, 1ST MAIN, II STAGE, DEVARAJ URS NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577204

¶29

11 . SRI H V ANANDKUMAR S/O VEERABHADRA HANJI, RTD K.P.T.C.L. SENIOR ASSISTANT, MIG 21, KHB COLONY, 1ST STAGE, GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA-577204

¶30

12 . SMT SHARADAMMA W/O DINAKARA HANJI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶31

¶32

13 . SRI NATARAJA HANJI S/O DINAKARA HANJI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶33

14 . SRI ASHOKA HANJI S/O LATE DINAKARA HANJI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶34

RESPONDENTS 12 TO 14 ARE R/O LAXMIPURA VILLAGE, HOSHALLI THANDA, THIRTHAHALLI ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577202

¶35

15 . SRI.H.V.SHIVASHANKAR, S/O LATE SRI.VEERABHADRA HANJI SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶36

SMT DR S ANITHA HANJI D/O LATE H V SHIVASHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NO 1777/4, MANDARA NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN, VINAYAKA EXTN NEAR VIDYANAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577005

¶37

16 . SMT DR SNEHA HANJI D/O LATE H V SHIVASHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NO 5658/0-15, 1ST FLOOR, LIC COLONY, BEHIND NUTHAN COLLEGE, DAVANAGERE-577005

¶38

17 . SMT ASHWINI SHARATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O CHANDRA SHEKARA HANJI, C/O SIDDAPPA, RTD FOROEST RANGE OFFICER, 6TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, VINOBHANAGARA,

¶39

¶40

SHIVAMOGGA-577204

¶41

18 . SMT ANURADHA KUMARA SWAMI W/O KUMARA SWAMI, D/O CHANDRASHEKARA HANJI, AGED 36 YEARS, NO 395, C.R.P.F. COLONY, YELAHANKA, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560064 19 . SMT USHA SIDDAPPA D/O SRI VEERABHADRA HANJI, W/O SIDDAPPA, (RTD FOREST RANGE OFFICER), AGED 73 YEARS, 1ST STAGE, 6TH CROSS, VINOBHANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577204 20 . SMT GIRIJA ESHWAR D/O SRI VEERABHADRA HANJI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O DR G H ESHWARAPPA, DOOR NO 137, DEEPASHRI, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, MAZDOOR EMPLOYEES LAYOUT, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI.R GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI.SANTHOSH.H.R, ADVOCATE FOR R20; SRI.M.BHASKAR JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR R15)

¶44

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 2 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.57/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT, JUDGE, C/C III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT, JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE

¶45

¶46

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2015 PASSED IN OS No.98/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶47

IN RSA NO.853/2023 BETWEEN:

¶48

SMT USHA SIDDAPPA

¶49

D/O VEERABHADRA HANJI W/O DR G H ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O 1ST STAGE, 6TH CROSS VINOBANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301

¶50

...APPELLANT

¶51

(BY SRI.DAYANAND S PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND:

¶53

SMT SUVARNAMMA W/O LATE S BASAPPA BY HER LRS

¶54

1 . K B MANJUNATHA

¶55

S/O LATE S BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RTD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KEB R/O APPAJI, 8TH BLOCK, 10TH CROSS SHARAVATHI NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶56

2 . SMT RATHNA W/O DR BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS C/O SRINATH BASAPPA KOLAMBI, NO 18, WEITERIA COURT PINCATAWAMY, NEW JERSY

¶57

¶58

N J 008854 USA

¶59

3 . SMT POORNIMA W/O MAHESH AGED 57 YEARS C/O RTD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KEB R/O APPAJI, 8TH BLOCK, 10TH CROSS SHARAVATHI NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶60

4 . SRINATH BASAPPA KOLAMBI S/O LATE S BASAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O NO 18, WEITERIA COURT PINCATAWAY, NEW JERSY N J 008854 USA

¶61

5 . VIJAY KUMAR HANJI S/O VEERABHADRA HANJI BY HIS LRS

¶62

SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR HANJI AGE MAJOR R/AT NO 23, SRI VEERABHADRA 1ST MAIN, II STAGE DEVARAJ URS NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶63

6 . SMT REKHA HANJI MAJOR R/O NO 422, GANGA, 22ND MAIN II STAGE, J P NAGARA MSYORE-570008

¶64

7 . SMT LEELA HANJI W/O LATE S BASAPPA MAJOR

¶65

¶66

R/AT NO 32, GANGA 1ST CROSS 1ST MAIN, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA KENGERI, NEAR CHECK POST MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560039

¶67

8 . SMT PARVATHAMMA HANJI MAJOR C/O REKHA HANJI R/O NO 422, GANGA 22ND MAIN, II STAGE, J P NAGAR MYSORE-570008

¶68

9 . SHAKUNTALA HANJI MAJOR R/AT NO 879, AASKHSITHA NILAYA 23RD MAIN, II STAGE J P NAGARA, MSYSORE-570008.

¶69

10 . PRAFULLACHANDRA HANJI MAJOR

¶70

R/O NO 23, SRI VEERABHADRA 1ST MAIN, II STAGE DEVARAJ URS NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶71

11 . H V ANANDKUMAR S/O VEERABHADRA HANJI AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RTD KPTCL, MIG 21 KHB COLONY, 1ST STAGE GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶72

12 . SMT SHARADAMMA W/O DINAKARA HANJI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶73

13 . NATARAJA HANJI

¶74

¶75

S/O LATE DINAKARA HANJI AGED 38 YEARS

¶76

14 . ASHOK HANJI S/O LATE DINAKARA HANJI AGED 36 YEARS

¶77

RESPONDENT 12 & 14 ARE R/AT LAXMIPURA VILLAGE HOSAHALLI THANDA, THIRTHAHALLI ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶78

15 . H V SHIVASHANKAR S/O LATE SRI VEERABHADRA HANJI SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶79

SMT DR S ANITHA HANJI D/O SHIVASHANKARA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O 177/4, MANDARA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN VINAYAKA EXTENSION NEAR VIDYANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577205

¶80

16 . SMT. DR S SNEHA HANJI D/O SHIVASHANKARA AGEDA BOUT 41 YEARS R/OF 5658/0-15, 1ST FLOOR LIC COLONY BEHIND NUTHAN COLLEGE DAVANAGERE-577005

¶81

17 . SMT ASHWINI SHARATH D/O CHANDRASHEKARA HANJI AGED 45 YEARS C/O SIDDAPPA RTD R F O, 6TH CROSS

¶82

¶83

1ST STAGE, VINOBHA NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶84

18 . SMT ANURADHA KUMARA SWAMI W/O KUMARA SWAMI D/O CHANDRASHEKR HANJI AGED 31 YEARS NO 395, CRPF COLONY YELAHANKA DODDABALLAPURA ROAD BANGALORE-560095

¶85

19 . SMT. GIRIJA ESHWAR D/O VEERABHADRA HANJI W/O DR G H ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS D NO 137, DEEPASHRI RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MAZDOOR EMPLOYEES LAYOUT SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶86

20 . SMT SAROJAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARA HANJI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O HANJI CHANDAN SHEKARA NIVAS, GANDHARAVA NAGARA NEW MANDALI, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶87

21 . ARAVINDA HANJI AGED 42 YEARS R/O OF HANJI CHANDAN SHEKHAR NIVASA GANDHARVA NAGARA NEW MANDALI, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶88

…RESPONDENTS

¶89

(BY SRI.R GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 4; SRI.H.T.VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R20 & 21)

¶90

¶91

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.57/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, C/c III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2015 PASSED IN OS No.98/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶92

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.11.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶93

JUDGMENT

¶94

These two appeals are filed by defendants 7 and

¶95

8 and defendant No.11. Defendants 7 and 8 have preferred RSA.No.531/2023 and defendant No.11 has preferred an appeal in RSA.No.853/2023. It is relevant to note that defendant No.11 has not contested the suit by filing the written statement nor has challenged the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.98/2011.

¶96

¶97

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are

¶98

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶99

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶100

Plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the suit schedule property is the

¶101

part and parcel of the property purchased by her through registered sale deed dated 4.12.1953. Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the suit property which comprises of a farm house with kana (thrashing field) situated in Survey No.293 of Lakshmipura Thanda, Hosahalli Village, measuring East 181 feet North-South, West 159 feet North-South, North 228 Feet East-West, South 145 feet East-West is part and parcel of Survey No.293. The present suit is filed seeking declaration and possession of suit schedule property. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she had permitted her brother Veerabhadra Hanji to manage the agricultural lands owned by her totally

¶102

¶103

measuring 10 acres 25 guntas and the said

¶104

Veerabhadra Hanji, who was managing the lands was residing in the suit farm house. Therefore, plaintiff has contended that she has constructed farm house in the suit schedule property and hence, sought for recovery of possession which is based on title.

¶105

Defendants 7 and 8 on receipt of summons

¶106

contested the proceedings and stoutly denied the averments made in the plaint. Defendants 7 and 8 disputed the claim of plaintiff that farm house is part and parcel of Survey No.293. Defendants 7 and 8 on the contrary contended that the farm house is situated in panchayath area bearing No.132. The defendants also contended that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation as plaintiff has lost her right over the property under Section 27 of the Limitation Act.

¶107

¶108

5. Defendants 3 to 5 claimed that they have

¶109

perfected their title by way of adverse possession and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶110

Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence.

¶111

Trial Court having taken cognizance of judgment rendered in O.S.No.926/1992 which was filed by Veerabhadra Hanji, who is admittedly the ancestor of defendants and also the judgment rendered by the appellate Court in R.A.No.9/2004 has negatived the contentions raised by the defendants. While examining the findings recorded by the Court in the earlier round of litigation in O.S.No.926/1992, the trial Court took cognizance of the finding of fact recorded in the said suit. In the said suit, the Court referring to the evidence and pleadings found that defendants' ancestor Veerabhadra Hanji while

¶112

¶113

admitting the defendants' title claimed adverse possession. The trial Court referring to Ex.P19 which is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.926/1992 found that the schedule in the said suit tallies with the present suit schedule. The trial Court having taken cognizance of several admissions elicited in the crossexamination of Defendant No.8 in the earlier suit bearing No.926/1992, who appears to be the grand son of Veerabhadra Hanji found that defendant No.8 has admitted the existence of farm house in Survey No.293. The trial Court also found that several admissions were elicited in the earlier suit where it was admitted that Veerabhadra Hanji was looking after the land of Suvarnamma. Referring to the judgment rendered in O.S.926/1992 and the judgment rendered in R.A.No.9/2004, the trial Court found that plea of adverse possession raised by Veerabhadra Hanji was negatived. Though trial Court

¶114

¶115

held that Veerabhadra Hanji is entitled for protection till possession is taken under due process of law, the appellate Court reversed the said finding in R.A.No.9/2004 and the suit filed by Veerabhadra Hanji was dismissed by allowing the appeal filed by the present plaintiff in R.A.No.9/2004. The trial Court has also taken cognizance of Ex.P18 wherein Form No.7A filed by husband of defendant No.7 and father of defendant No.8 is rejected. Referring to this document, trial Court found that existence of farm house in Survey No.293 also stand substantiated.

¶116

The trial Court answered Issue Nos.4 and 5

¶117

in the negative and issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative and decreed the suit thereby declaring plaintiff as absolute owner and defendants were directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property.

¶118

¶119

Appellate Court has independently

¶120

assessed the entire evidence on record. While reassessing the entire evidence let in by plaintiff, the appellate Court has concurred with the reasons and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court in regard to existence of farm house in the land bearing No.293 and the finding recorded in the earlier round of litigation where defendants' ancestor was held to be only in permissive possession of Survey No.293 which includes farm house and kana.

¶121

Heard the learned counsel appearing for defendants 7 and 8 and defendant No.11 and learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs. I have given my anxious consideration to the voluminous documents produced by plaintiff.

¶122

Having examined the records, this Court would find that the case has a checkered history and

¶123

¶124

defendants on frivolous grounds have succeeded in denying the plaintiff from recovering possession of the suit property. Feeble attempt is made by defendants 7 and 8 by contending that the farm house constructed is in their agricultural land and not in Survey No.293. This contention does not detain this Court for long as this issue is dealt by the Courts in earlier round of litigations. It would be useful for this Court to cull out Paragraphs 19 and 22 of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.926/1992, which reads as under:

¶125

"19. Ex.D.3 to D.8 are important documents, which throws light upon the type of possession of the plaintiff and the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. These letters are written at an undisputed point of time. Ex.D.3 is dated 7.6.58, it is written by the plaintiff Veerabhadra Hanji to the defendant. In which it is stated that the defendant should send some money to the plaintiff if it is convenient. Ex.D.4 is dated 14.8.58, in this letter it is stated by the plaintiff to the defendant that at for the present field work is over and other works have to be done in respect of the land of the defendant and it is also stated that the defendant should give consent signature to obtain loan for cultivation.

¶126

¶127

Ex.D.5 is dated 26.2.60, in which the defendant has been called upon by the plaintiff to send a signed application. Ex.D.6 is dated 21.2.61, in this letter the plaintiff has stated about the Tahsildar's visit in respect of survey of the defendants' land. Ex.D.7 is dated 6.8.64 in which the plaintiff has stated to send some money to him by the defendant. These letters indicate that the plaintiff was looking after the property of the defendant and that he was depending upon the defendant. The plaintiff has suppressed these facts in this plaint. These document which are more than 30 years old, supports the defendants' version and probablises the defendants' contention. DW-1 has also spoken to this fact. Though the plaintiff has produced some revenue documents, showing his name, it cannot be held that he is in possession adverse to the defendant. It could be seen from the letters Ex.D.3 to D.8 that the plaintiff also used to get applications signed from the defendants. It is probable that the plaintiffs might have got the revenue documents in his name without knowledge of the defendant. Some of the documents which are produced by the plaintiff itself shows the house as a Farmhouse. Under such circumstances the theory of adverse possession putforth by the plaintiff does not sound reasonable.

¶128

22. Though the plaintiff has not been able to show his adverse possession, there is evidence to show that PW-1 and his mother is in possession of suit schedule property belonging to the defendant. This court is of the opinion that the possession of Veerabhadra Hanji was only by way of permission given and the PW-1and his mother i.e., the wife of Veerabhadra Hanji were residing in the said property, along with Veerabhadra Hanji. There is no evidence to show the

¶129

¶130

termination of the permission. The defendants counsel submitted that the averment in the plaint that the defendant tried to remove coconut and start Guddali Pooja itself shows that the permission has been terminated impliedly. But this court is of the opinion that such inference of implied termination cannot be drawn. The Voters list marked as Ex.P.7 shows the name of Veerabhadra Hanji, his wife, Chandrashekar (father of PW-1) and wife of Chandrashekar. This document supported by evidence of PW-1can be relied to show that PW-1 and his mother are in possession of the house and the property as shown in the suit schedule. Ex.P.13 is the certificate given by the Secretary, Gajanur Mandal Panchayath in respect of the possession by Veerabhadra Hanji, the boundaries shown in this document tallies with the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances this court is of the opinion that the original plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit by way of permission of the defendant and only PW-1 and his mother who were along with the original plaintiff are now in possession.

¶131

The plaintiff has relied upon the decision of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case Sathyam@ Ramaiah Vs. K.M.F. Co-operative Ltd., reported ILR 1999 KAR 1451 in which it has been held that where a trespasser is in settled possession of the land he is entitled to resist or defend his possession as against the rightful owner who tries to dispossess him. Another decision as to the same effect has been relied, which is of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Krishna Ram Mahale Vs. Shoba Venkat Rao reported in AIR 1989 SC 2097. Therefore, even a tresspasser who is in settled possession cannot be

¶132

¶133

dispossesed without recourse to law, even by the owner. The defendant in this case cannot dispossess the plaintiff without recourse to law, though his possession may be equivalent or lesser than that of a licensee. The defendant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premji Ratansey Shah Vs. U.O.I, where it has been held that injunction cannot be issued against a trespasser or a person who gained unlawfully as against the owner. But this decision does not state about 'settled" possession.

¶134

The other decisions relied on by the plaintiff are not applicable to this case as the set of facts are quiet different in those cases.

¶135

The defendant among other decision also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case Mirza Mohamed Yusuf Baig Vs. M/s.Deccan Enterprises reported in 1996 (2) KLJ 109 wherein it is held that the party seeking relief on basis of settled possession must show in what capacity he came into possession of property. In the case on hand though the plaintiff has failed to establish adverse possession, the plaintiff is able to show possession. The capacity in which be came into possession of the property is found by this court as that by way of permission.

¶136

The defendant also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Vinod Kuma Arora Vs. Surjit Kaur reported in 1987 (3) SCC 711 in which it is held that the parties cannot give up the case set out in the pleadings and propound a new and different case. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not given up their case set out in the pleadings and no new or different case has been propounded.

¶137

¶138

Hence, plaintiff No.1(e) I & II are entitled for permanent injunction from trespassing or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the dispossession by due process of law. However the plaintiffs are not entitled for injunction restraining the defendant and her men, from claiming any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property and such relief is also not in consonance with the spirit of law. Hence, the Recasted Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative, and Addl. Issue No.1 is also answered in the Affirmative. Issue No.3 is answered partly in the Affirmative. Only to extent of interference and trespass over possession of plaintiff No.1(e) I & II are entitled for permanent injunction only till the dispossession by due process of law."

¶139

The deposition of defendant No.8 would also clinch the controversy in regard to existence of farm house in Survey No.293, the relevant portion of which is culled out as under:

¶140

"C eÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄ eÁUÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. FUÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ ¸ÀÄvÀÛªÀÄÄvÀÛ eÁUÀ ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ «¹ÛÃtð ªÀÄÄPÁÌ®Ä J. §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀÄ ºÉÆ¸ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸À.£ÀA:244 EzÉ. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ: ¥ÉæöÊªÀÄj ±Á¯É ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ: §¸À¥Àà£ÀUÀgÀ vÉÆÃl GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ: ®A¨ÁtÂ vÀAqÀ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ zÀQëtPÉÌ: ¸ÀÄ§â ªÉÆzÀ°AiÀiÁgï EªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F eÁUÀªÀÅ ¸ÀÄªÀtð£ÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß CdÓ¤UÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è £ÁªÀÅ 1952 jAzÀ zÁªÁ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÉÝÃªÉ £ÁªÀÅ F jÃw ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¸ÀÄªÀtðªÀÄä¤UÉ

¶141

¶142

UÉÆwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉÝ. £À£Àß CdÓ fÃªÀAvÀ PÁ®zÀ°è zÁªÁ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁrwÛzÁgÉ ¢:¼ 5-10-92 gÀ°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¸ÀÄªÀtðªÀÄä §AzÀÄ zÁªÁ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖPÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ DUÀ £À£ÀUÉ 18 ªÀµÀð EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÀQÌAvÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÁådå CxÀªÁ UÀ¯ÁmÉ DVgÀ°®è. zÁªÁ ¸ÉÆévÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄªÀtð£ÀªÀÄä¤UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÉ 5-10-95 gÀ°è vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆlÖ §UÉÎ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ zÁªÁ ¸ÉÆéwÛUÉ 84 jAzÀ «zÀÄåvï ±ÀQÛ ¥ÀÆgÉÊPÉ EzÉ PÀAzÁAiÀÄªÀÅ PÀÆqÁ «ÃgÀ§zÀæ CAf EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ PÀnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ 60-61£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À C¸É¸ÉäAmï jf¸ÀÖgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀàr¹zÉÃ£É CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀæªÀÄªÁV ¤¦1 jAzÀ ¤¦3 CAvÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ 1 rªÀiÁAqï jf¸ÀÖgï JPÀìmÁæPÀë£Àß ºÁdgÀàr¹zÉÝÃ£É CzÀÄ ¤¦4 CAvÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ «zÀÄåvï ±ÀQÛ EgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ zÉÊrPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀàr¹zÉÝÃ£É CzÀÄ ¤¦5 CAvÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ zÁªÁ ¸ÉÆéwÛ£À°è ªÁ¸À EzÀÝ §UÉÎ ºÉÆ¸ÀºÀ½îUÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ zÀÈrPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀàr¹zÀÄÝ CzÀÄ ¤¦6 CAvÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ UÁdÄ£ÀÆgÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ Nlgï °¸ÀÖ£Àß ºÁdgÀàr¹zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è £À£Àß CdÓ, CfÓ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£Àß ¤¦7 (J) CAvÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ zÁªÁ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è jÃ¥ÉÃj ªÀiÁr¸À®Ä ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀàr¹zÉÝÃ£É CzÀÄ ¤¦8 CAvÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."

¶143

"zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁQzÀ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £Á£ÀÄ F zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÁ®ÆèPï ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛAiÀÄ°è PÀÆqÁ £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. F zÁR°UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ 1992-93 gÀ°è £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. zÁªÁ ªÀÄ£É AiÀiÁªÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§j£À°èzÉ CAvÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. zÁªÁ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¥sÁgïäºË¸ï DVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. zÁªÁ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ°èzÉ. d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É DV UÁæªÀÄgÁuÁÚzÀ°èzÉ. £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA§gÀÄ UÉÆwÛgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. zÁªÁ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀÄªÀtðªÀÄä£ÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀd«ÄÃ¤£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À £ÀªÀÄäzÉÃ EzÉ. F ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀÄªÀtðªÀÄä£ÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÉ. ¸ÀÄªÀtðªÀÄä £ÀªÀÄä CdÓ£À

¶144

¶145

vÀAVAiÀiÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä CdÓ ¸ÀÄªÀt£ÀªÀÄä£ÀªÀjUÉ zÉÆqÀØ CtÚ£ÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀªÀÄä CdÓ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä vÀjPÉjAiÀÄ°ègÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä CdÓ vÀjPÉjAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁåAPï ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀÄªÀtðªÀÄä EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄä CdÓ£ÀªÀjUÉ zÁªÁ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÀÄvÀÛ ªÀÄÄvÀÛ°gÀÄ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ F ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ¯ÉèÃ EgÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÀÄªÀtðªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ §¸À¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°èzÀÝgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÈvÀÛgÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀÄªÀtðªÀÄä£ÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÉÃ £ÉÆÃrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 01-09-92gÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ £À£Àß zÉÆqÀØ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÀPÀgÀ EªÀgÀ ºÉAr PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ »¸Éì ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj EzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ D ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

¶146

Ex.P18 which is the Form No.7A filed by husband of first defendant and father of defendant No.2 claiming occupancy rights against the plaintiff also clinches existence of form house in Survey No.293. Relevant portion is culled out as under:

¶147

" «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤¢üUÉ ºÉÆÃ§½ gÁd¸Àé ¤ÃjPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄ¸ÀÜgÀ ªÀÄºÀdj£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. SÁvÉ ¥ÀºÀtÂ ²æÃªÀÄw. ¸ÀÄªÀtðªÀÄä PÉÆÃA §¸À¥Àà JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÀÄÝ 1973-74jAzÀ F 2011gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸À¢æAiÀÄªÀgÉÃ ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸ÁUÀÄªÀ½ C£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸À¢æ SÁvÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁ° ºÉÆgÀzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸ÁUÀÄªÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. ¸À.£ÀA.293gÀ°è 1-35JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤£À°è 30'*20' Cr C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄ ºÀAZÉ ªÀÄ£É EzÀÄÝ, F ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CgÀ«AzÀ

¶148

¶149

ºÀAf JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ F »AzÉ ªÁ¸À«zÀÄÝ ºÁ° ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."

¶150

One more relevant aspect which would give

¶151

a quietus to the dispute in regard to the description of the suit property and existence of a farm house in Survey No.293 is the finding recorded by the trial Court on additional issue No.1 in O.S.No. 926/1992,

¶152

which relates to proof of description of the suit property and boundaries. The said issue is answered in the affirmative and the Court has held that the suit schedule property comprising of a farm house and open space is substantiated by the plaintiff in the earlier round of litigation.

¶153

Ex.D29 is a tippani copy produced by defendants. Defendant No.4 has admitted the existence of farm house in Survey No.293 when this Ex.D29 was confronted to him.

¶154

¶155

The paragraphs 19 and 22 of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.926/1992 which is culled out (supra) estop defendant from asserting title and resisting delivery of possession. If the Courts have recorded a finding of fact in the earlier round of litigation to the effect that defendant's ancestor was in permissive possession over the suit land and if further identity of the property is also adjudicated, the significance of these findings/legal tenet will not only impact upon the litigants involved in the antecedent litigation but extends its authoritative reach to encompass their successors-in-interest. The solemnity and gravity of a Court's pronouncement imbue it with a character of irrefutable evidentiary value, rendering it binding upon the parties and their progeny in subsequent legal contests. The Courts, as custodians of justice, are entrusted with the duty to safeguard the sanctity of prior adjudications, fostering a legal

¶156

¶157

landscape characterized by coherence and

¶158

consistency. This obligation serves not merely as a legal formality but as an indispensable mechanism to fortify the edifice of justice, wherein the echoes of past pronouncements resonate with authoritative import, guiding the trajectory of legal deliberations.

¶159

In the earlier suit, the Courts have concurrently held that Veeerabhadra Hanji was in permissive possession, he being the elder brother of original plaintiff Suvarnamma and the plaintiff has to seek possession by initiating appropriate proceedings. If these significant details are looked into, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in both the appeals.

¶160

The ancestors of defendants namely

¶161

Veerabhadra Hanji filed a bare suit for injunction in O.S.No.926/1992. In the said suit, the ancestor of

¶162

¶163

defendants asserted title by way of adverse

¶164

possession. The said suit was dismissed and the trial Court held that Veerabhadra Hanji is in permissive possession. The appeal filed by the present plaintiff in RA.No.9/2004 was allowed and the relief of perpetual injunction granted in O.S.No.926/1992 was reversed. The defendants having suffered a decree in R.A.No.9/2004 again filed O.S.No.140/2005. The application filed by defendants seeking temporary injunction was dismissed on 10.8.2005 and M.A.No.46/2005 was also dismissed. The husband

¶165

and father of defendants 7 and 8 respectively filed Form No.7A claiming occupancy rights in Survey No.293. The series of litigations are imposed on plaintiff, who is the lawful owner and has been harassed by the defendants. The original plaintiff Suvarnamma has been litigating this lis since 1992.

¶166

¶167

The Apex Court has held that it is the

¶168

Courts and not in the legislature that our citizen primarily feel the keen, the cutting edge of Law. The faith of the people is the source and succor to invigorate justice intertwined with the efficacy of Law. It is primary duty and highest responsibility of the

¶169

Court to impose exemplary cost to restore the confidence of the Litigant Public. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. Being sued can be incredibly frustrating. Even if the case is merit less, the defendant has to expend time, energy and financial resources to have the suit dismissed. The downside of such a system is that it can be abused. The turmoil and expense of litigation can cause significant harm. The defendants by resisting present suit have in all probability used judicial process to

¶170

¶171

inflict injury on plaintiff. The case itself has become a tool to harm plaintiff.

¶172

Therefore, this is a fit case to impose

¶173

exemplary cost on defendants 7 and 8 as well as defendant No.11.

¶174

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

¶175

following:

¶176

ORDER

¶177

The appeals are dismissed by imposing cost of

¶178

Rs.25,000/- each on defendants 7, 8 and 11 payable

¶179

to plaintiff.

¶180

Sd/JUDGE

¶181

*alb/-

Smt. Sarojamma v. Smt Suvarnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sarojamma v. Smt Suvarnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H v Padmanaba Gowda Vs Muniyamma

Sri Alwyn Jayakar Menon Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Savithramma Vs Sri. Putta

M S Kenchegowda Vs M S Subbegowda

The Trinity Industrial Institute Shanthinagara (Ragigudda) Vs the Directorate General

K R Rangaswamaiah Vs Venkataramaiah