Dismissed

N M Patel v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023RSA/561/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal against concurrent judgments dismissing a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The court held that the suit was not maintainable for Inam lands as title vests with the Government unless there is a re-grant order in the plaintiff's favour, which was in favour of the defendants. The suit was also barred by limitation and Section 9 of the CPC.

What did the court decide?

Concurrent judgments dismissing the appeal and confirming the lower court's decree were upheld. The Second Appeal was dismissed.

N M Patel Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.561 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

N M PATEL

¶8

S/O LATE B G MANJAPPA @ MANJAPPA PATEL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶9

B G SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE B G MANJAPPA @ MANJAPPA PATEL AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶10

B S BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE B G SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶11

B S JAYAPPA S/O LATE B G SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

C S PATEL S/O LATE B G SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶14

APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE AGRICULTURISTS & RESIDENTS OF BILAKI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH , ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION (REVENUE) SHIVAMOGGA

¶21

THE TAHASILDAR BHADRAVATHI TALUK BHADRAVATHI

¶22

H G RUDRAPPA S/O VEERAPPA GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶23

H G PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O H G RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS OCC:ADVOCATE R/O C/O SHASHIDAR 5TH CROSS, SHESHADRIPURAM OPP. NATIONAL CBSE SCHOOL NORTH GATE, SHIVAMOGGA 577201

¶24

H G SOMASHEKARAPPA S/O H G RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NIDIGE VILLAGE & POST - 577222 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT

¶25

H G OMKARAPPA S/O H G RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶28

R/O NIDIGE VILLAGE & POST-577222 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT

¶29

H G MANJUNATH S/O H G RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O NIDIGE VILLAGE & POST-577222 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT

¶30

H G BASAVARAJAPPA S/O H G RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O BILAKI VILLAGE DODAMAGHATTA POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶31

H G PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O H G NEELAKANTAPPA GOWDA MAJOR

¶32

OCC AGRICULTURE HOLALUR POST-577216 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK

¶33

H G SOMASHEKARAPPA S/O H G RUDRAPPA GOWDA MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE HOLALUR POST-577216 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK

¶34

H G MARIYAPPA

¶35

@ MARIYAPPA GOWDA, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS

¶36

SMT BASAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶38

@ MARIYAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/O BILAKI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK 577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶39

H G BASAVARAJA

¶40

ADOPTED S/O LATE MARIYAPPA @ MARIYAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O BILAKI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶41

H G CHANNAPPA GOWDA AGED MAJOR S/O VEERAPPA GOWDA AT/POST NIDIGE 577222 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2015 PASSED IN RA.NO.169/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.04.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.175/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHADRAVATHI AND ETC.

¶44

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

¶45

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the concurrent judgments of both Courts, wherein plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of declaration that they are alone entitled to succeed to the suit property attached to the Bilaki Village Office as they being the natural grandsons of one late Basappa Gowda and for consequential relief of injunction against defendant Nos.4 to 6 is dismissed by both Courts. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are before this Court questioning the concurrent judgments of both Courts.

¶48

For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the

¶49

parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶50

Brief facts leading to the case are as under;

¶51

The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs contend that suit lands are Pateli Inam Lands attached to the Bilaki

¶52

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶53

Village Office situated at Bilaki Village. The plaintiffs contended that defendant No.4 and father of defendant No.5 by creating false documents in collusion with revenue officials have secured re-grant order. The plaintiffs alleged that the alienation made by the father of defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.6 in respect of 2 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No.2 is a fraudulent document. The plaintiffs have also disputed the inter-se partition effected in the family of defendant No.4 and defendant Nos.7 and 8 in respect of item Nos.2 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties under partition deed dated 11.11.1997. The present suit is filed seeking declaration that they are alone entitled to succeed

¶54

to the suit properties, which were admittedly Inam lands attached to the Bilaki Village Office situated at Bilaki.

¶55

The defendants on receipt of summons

¶56

contested proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant Nos.4 and 6 contended that their ancestors were having right over the Pateli Inam lands attached to the Bilaki Village Office and

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶59

under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961 (for short 'Act'), the sons of Basappagowda namely B.G.Manjappa and B.G.Shivappa, who are the fathers of plaintiff No.1 to 5, defendant No.4 and father of defendant No.5 have jointly filed an application seeking re-grant of lands, which were in their possession situated both in Bilaki and Holalur Village. The defendants claimed that the Competent Authority, after due enquiry, has re-granted the lands in their favour and therefore, contended that the present suit filed in the year 1998 is hopelessly barred by limitation.

¶60

The plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate

¶61

their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court having meticulously examined the oral and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiffs and the defendants answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are exclusive owners of the suit schedule lands left behind by Rudrappaiah @ Rudraiah through their

¶62

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶63

adopted grandfather Basappa Gowda and plaintiffs have also failed to prove that defendant No.4 and father of defendant No.5 by playing fraud have concocted and created documents. While answering issue No.7 in the affirmative, the Trial Court has held that the plaintiffs' suit filed in the year 1998 is barred by limitation. While answering issue Nos.3 to 5 in the Negative, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

¶64

The Trial Court while negating the contention of the plaintiffs and having taken cognizance of the rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants held that the contesting defendants on account of abolition of village office, submitted an application seeking re-grant of the land and the competent Authority has re-granted the land in favour of defendant No.4 and father of defendant No.5. The Trial Court referring to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case

¶65

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶66

LAKSHMANA GOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

¶67

OTHERS¹ held that the Holder of Service Inam land does not acquire any right in lands which stood vested with the Government under Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. The holder of service Inam Land can assert title provided that there is re-grant order. It is in this background the Trial Court held that unless there is a re-grant order in favour of the plaintiffs' family, the present suit is not maintainable.

¶68

The Trial Court has also held that the present

¶69

suit is squarely hit by Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and the plaintiffs' reliefs are barred under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. On these set of grounds, the suit is dismissed and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶70

1 KLJ 1981(1) PAGE 1

¶71

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶72

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶73

plaintiffs and perused the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts.

¶74

The true copy of the plaint is furnished by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. On reading the prayer column, this Court is more than satisfied that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is totally misconceived. It can be also gathered that the plaintiffs are well aware of the re-grant order granted in favour of defendant No.4 and father of defendant No.5. The prayer is also sought seeking declaration that the plaintiffs are alone entitled to succeed to the property attached to the Bilaki Village Office. It is not in dispute that the suit lands are Inam lands. If these factual matrix are admitted by the plaintiffs, then I am of the view that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs in the present forum is not at all maintainable. If suit lands were admittedly Inam lands,

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶77

the same stood vested with the Government automatically by operation of law.

¶78

Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek relief of

¶79

declaration that they alone are entitled to the property attached to Bilaki Village Office without there being a re-grant order in their favour. The plaintiffs, suit is also not maintainable as they have not challenged the re-grant order granted in favour of defendant No.4 and father of defendant No.5. The re-grant order is dated 19.01.1970.

¶80

The present suit is filed in the year 1998. If plaintiffs have not questioned the re-grant order granted by the competent authority under the special enactment Act, then the present suit in the present forum is not at all maintainable. If the land stood vested with the Government and if the Competent Authority has passed a re-grant order in favour of defendant No.4 and father of defendant No.5, the plaintiffs cannot assert and seek declaration of title. Even for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the family of the plaintiffs were holders of

¶81

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:40838 RSA No. 561 of 2016

¶82

Inam lands, the property automatically stood vested with the Government and therefore, in absence of re-grant order in favour of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' ancestors, the plaintiffs have no locus to seek declaration of their title over the properties in question. Both Courts were justified in answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Both Courts referring to the re-grant order and subsequent alienations and partition in the family of defendant No.4 based on the registered partition deed were justified in non-suiting the plaintiffs by holding that the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation.

¶83

In the light of the discussions made supra, no substantial questions of law arises for consideration.

¶84

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶85

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed.

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

¶87

NBM

¶88

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

N M Patel v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N M Patel v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Nagaraju @ Swamy Vs Smt Balkis John

Sri Nagaraju @ Swamy Vs Mr Stephen Raj

Sri Rudrappa Vs E B Thippeswamy

G P Thimanna Vs Nalinamma

Smt G v Gayathri Devi Vs Sri. T Venkatesh

N. Shivanna Vs Smt. Puttadevamma