Dismissed

Mr Basavanagowda v. Mr. Mruthyunjaya

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2023RSA/716/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal against a judgment and decree dismissing an injunction claim, the High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove possession of government land via documentary or oral evidence. The Court found no substantial question of law to frame as S.100 CPC is not invoked when material evidence is not proved, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was found to exist under Section 100 CPC.

Mr Basavanagowda Vs Mr. Mruthyunjaya — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:27479 RSA No. 716 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 716 OF 2021 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. BASAVANAGOWDA S/O. SIDDAPPA TATTUR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. INAM AGRAHARA MUCHADI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 428.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MR. MRUTHYUNJAYA S/O. SIADAPPA

¶15

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. BASAVARAJAGOWDA

¶16

SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶17

NAGARAJA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶18

SURESH S/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:27479 RSA No. 716 of 2021

¶21

ALL ARE R/O. AGRAHARAMUCHADI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA-577 428.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER 42 RULE (1) R/W. SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.02.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.11/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIKARIPURA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.18/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA.

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶27

This appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court. The plaintiff has sought for the relief of injunction to the extent of 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.112 which has been described in the schedule. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27479 RSA No. 716 of 2021

¶29

to the conclusion that the plaintiff has only produced the document of Ex.P1-Notice issued by the Tahsildar, Shikaripur and no document is produced before the Trial Court to prove that he is in possession of the property. The plaintiff is only relying upon the document of Ex.P1 and even the officials of the Revenue Department have not been examined in order to prove the document of Ex.P1. Apart from that, no document is placed before the Court to prove that he has been in possession of the property, except the document of Ex.P1.

¶30

The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in Para No.18 comes to the conclusion that in order to prove the possession, the plaintiff has not produced any document and only relied upon the document of Ex.P5 which is the decision of the Grama Sabha and the same goes to show that the plaintiff is cultivating in the suit survey to the extent of 2 acres which is a forest land and the same is contrary to oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff and the claim is only in respect of 20 guntas of land and not in respect of 2 acres as set out in the document of Ex.P5. Hence, the Trial Court comes

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:27479 RSA No. 716 of 2021

¶33

to the conclusion that plaintiff has not proved his possession to grant the relief.

¶34

The First Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion in Para Nos.11 and 12 of the judgment that, except the document of Ex.P1, no document is placed and in order to prove the document of Ex.P1 also, none of the witnesses, who belong to Revenue Department have been examined. Apart from that, the First Appellate Court also taken note of the document of Ex.P5 which came into existence in the year 2015 and suit was filed in 2013 and document of Ex.P5 has come into existence after filing of the suit. Hence, not accepted the case of the appellant and therefore, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the document produced is only Ex.P1 i.e., notice issued by the Tahsildar and except that document, no document is placed before the Court and prays this Court to frame substantial question of law that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the document of Ex.P1

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:27479 RSA No. 716 of 2021

¶37

¶38

and this Court has to frame substantial question of law. The very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.

¶39

It is settled law that when the plaintiff seeks for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the very property, he has to place the document to show that as on the date of suit, the property is standing in his name and admittedly, the property belongs to Government and the same is also not disputed by the plaintiff. In the absence of any documentary evidence that he has been in possession and also document relied upon by the plaintiff is only Ex.P1 and except the same, nothing is placed on record and the same is also not proved by examining the officials of the Revenue Department as observed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the question of framing substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC does not arise and this Court can frame substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC, if the material evidence is not considered and ignored by both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:27479 RSA No. 716 of 2021

¶41

¶42

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶43

following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The appeal is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Mr Basavanagowda v. Mr. Mruthyunjaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Basavanagowda v. Mr. Mruthyunjaya

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

Sri Manjunatha Reddy Vs Smt Muniyamma

K M Mahadevaiah Vs Akilabi

Ramanji Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Nanjamma Vs Smt. Rajamma

Dr P P Maiya Vs Nnf Karnataka

Sri.S.P.Rajakumar Vs Smt. Devaki