The High Court of Karnataka, in a regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, dismissed the appeal by holding that the lower courts' finding that the disputed property belonged to the defendant, not the temple, was supported by evidence and contained no perversity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:32075 RSA No. 650 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.650 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
WORKING AT CO OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE R/O. HOSAKERE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571419
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S Y SHIVALLI, ADVOCATE) AND:
CHIKKADODAIAH
ALL R/O. HOSAKERE VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571419
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 01.03.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants.
right over the suit schedule property hence, sought for an order of declaration and injunction. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence and accordingly, the fourth plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined the witnesses as PW2 to PW5 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P14. On the other hand, the first defendant examined as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D12. The Trial Court having considered the both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not placed any documents to show that the property belongs to the temple and only produced the assessment register extract, copy of the sale deeds, licence and photos. Even though Ex.D5 is the certified copy of sale deed, Ex.D6 and D7 are the original sale deeds and Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the property belongs to defendant no.2 and the same is sold in favour of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs have not made out any case. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs
NC: 2023:KHC:32075 RSA No. 650 of 2018
preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that judgment and decree of the Trial Court does not require any interference and the same is considered based on the material on record and dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed.
the appellants and also on perusal of the material on record it discloses that it is the specific case of the
plaintiffs that the property belongs to the temple and in order to prove the same, no documentary evidence is placed before the Court and PW1 to PW5 who have been examined in support of the case of the plaintiffs also given clear admission with regard to that what is the extent of property belongs to the temple and all of them deposed before the Court that they have not having any knowledge about total extent of the property belongs to the temple. PW4 categorically admitted in the evidence that disputed property purchased by defendant No.1 by defendant No.2. Having considered admissions, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not made out a case for granting an order of declaration and injunction. The First Appellate Court also considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in paragraphs 24 to 26 discussed in detail and comes to the conclusion that the property not belongs to the temple as contended by the plaintiffs and both the Courts have considered the material on record and passed the judgment and decree and no perversity is found in the judgment of both the
NC: 2023:KHC:32075 RSA No. 650 of 2018
courts. In the absence of perversity in the findings of both
the Courts, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants have not made out any grounds to admit the appeal and to frame substantial questions of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC.
Whether there is perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court regarding the ownership of the disputed property.
SRI NAGABUSHAN S/O. LATE. H R RENUKARADYA
SRI. SIDDARAMU S/O. BOLEGOWDA
CHIKKADODAIAH DEAD BY LEGAL HEIR
SMT. DODDABEERAMMA
H A PUTTASWAMY S/O. LATE. APPAJAPPA
HOSAKERE GRAMA PANCHAYAT
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
