Disposed

Union of India v. Sri R Raghuva Reddy

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2024MFA/1479/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by Union of India against dismissal of application to set aside an ex parte decree in a suit for permanent injunction over land. The High Court held that the Trial Court made diligent efforts to serve notice and that appellants had knowledge of proceedings from their participation in the earlier appeal; no sufficient cause was shown. Appeal disposed with liberty to seek declaration of title

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to parties to approach the appropriate Court to claim relief regarding title in any independent proceedings.

Union of India Vs Sri R Raghuva Reddy — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1479 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶9

THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER NO 42, KAMARAJ ROAD, CIVIL STATION, BENGALURU 560042

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI ARAVIND KAMATH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI CHANDRACHUD A, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI R RAGHUVA REDDY S/O SRI G RAMAIAH REDDY, AGED MAJOR,

¶15

SRI R GURU REDDY S/O SRI G RAMAIAH REDDY, AGED MAJOR, BOTH ARE R/AT No.668-1 ‘D’ MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560071

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI R V S NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(D) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.25.09.2023 PASSED IN MISC. NO.23/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the order dated 25.09.2023 passed in Misc. No.23/2013 by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶24

The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners is that the respondents have filed a suit in O.S.No.7613/1992 seeking the relief of permanent injunction making the allegation against the appellants

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶26

herein that they are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.1 situated at Challagatta village, Varthur hobli, H A Sanitary Road, Bengalouru South Taluk, measuring to an extent of 2 acres 27 guntas. The defendants that is appellants herein appeared and filed the written statement. At the first instance, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Hence, Regular First Appeal is filed before this Court and this Court vide order dated 31.07.2008, remanded the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to dispose of the matter within a time bound period of six months and also given liberty to both the parties to adduce their evidence and even the parties are also permitted to produce the additional documents. Thereafter, the Trial Court also issued notice against the appellants herein and there is an endorsement that notice was served on the office of respondent No.1 and notice also issued to respondent No.2 by way of substituted service as well as by registered post. Inspite of it, the appellants did not appear to contest the matter and ultimately, the suit was decreed

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶28

vide order 22.01.2010. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Misc. No.23/2013 was filed before the Trial Court by the appellants herein praying the Court to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2010 on the ground that there is no proper service of notice on the appellants.

¶29

The counsel for the appellants would submits that the Trial Court relies upon the notice which is served on the office of respondent No.1 but the same is disputed by the counsel. The counsel also would contend that property belongs to military and hence, there cannot be an order of injunction on the guise that they are not represented before the Trial Court. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the reason has been explained for delay in filing the miscellaneous petition in 2013 since there was no proper service of notice. Hence, this Court has to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶30

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

¶31

the respondent would vehemently contend that the

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶33

appellants have the knowledge of the order of this Court passed in the first appeal wherein a direction was given to dispose of the case with a time bound period of six months. Inspite of service of notice also, the appellants did not choose to appear and contest the matter and only after 4½ years, filed the miscellaneous petition before the Trial Court and the Trial Court in detail discussed the evidence of PW1 who led the evidence before the miscellaneous Court and extracted the admission of PW1 and detail order has passed and hence, no ground to set aside the order.

¶34

The counsel for the respondent in response to the contention of the counsel for the appellants with regard to the fact that the property belongs to the military, submits that respondent is claiming title in respect of the suit schedule property from 1947 and even ready to seek for the relief of declaration to establish the title before the Court by paying the Court fee also hence,

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶36

the very claim of the appellants that it is the property belongs to the military cannot be accepted.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. This Court has to take note of the admitted facts. It is not in dispute that the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and also not in dispute that at the first instance, the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before this Court. It is also not in dispute that this Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with liberty to adduce evidence by placing additional documents.

¶38

It is also important to note that the very

¶39

contention of the appellants that no notice was served and the learned counsel for the respondent brought to notice of this Court service of notice on the office and though counsel disputes the seal and signature, the admission given by PW1 in Miscellaneous petition is very clear for

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶41

having served the notice. It is also important to note that when the appeal was filed by the respondents before this Court in R.F.A. and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration and appellants have represented before this Court and had the knowledge about remanding of matter with time bound period of six months and even parties are permitted to lead their evidence by placing additional documents, but, the appellants kept quiet till 2013 and only contention that no proper service of notice. Even assuming that there is no proper service of notice, when they participated in the proceedings in R.F.A., they have the knowledge of remand, they cannot contend that there is no proper service of notice. Even records also discloses that Trial Court had issued the notice and service of notice on respondent No.1 also as the same is served on the office. The Trial Court, in paragraph 11, discussed in detail the admission given by PW1 about the notice and also the order sheet of the Trial Court as well as direction given by this Court to dispose of the same within a time bound period and also document was confronted and the same is

¶42

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶43

marked as Ex.R1. Apart from that detail discussion was made in paragraph 13 for having the knowledge about the same and also date was given for appearance of defendant No.2 after the substituted service invoking Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC and also taken note of the fact that when the matter was posted on 13.04.2009 for appearance of defendant No.2, defendant No.2 was absent on that day and the Court opined that the defendant No.2 is Union of India and summons published in newspaper comes to the conclusion that it is not sufficient and directed to take fresh steps. The said direction was duly complied by the plaintiff and notice was sent to the defendant No.2 through RPAD which was not returned. After one month from the date of RPAD, the Court directed the office to place complaint with postal authorities and obtain necessary endorsement with regard to delivery of postal cover to defendant No.2 and posted for appearance of defendant No.2. As per order sheet dated 26.08.2009, the postal acknowledgment due returned to the Court which does not disclose the same to which official and on what

¶44

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶45

date and seals is also not legible. Defendant No.2 absent. No representation. Again posted for appearance of defendant No.2 and direction given to the office to obtain report from postal authority about delivery of postal cover to defendant No.2. It shows that the Court has put every effort for issuance of Court notice to defendant No.2 even after notice served to their counsel. Again on 22.10.2009, the notice of IA filed by the plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 also issued to the defendants which was withdrawn as not pressed. But to the said IA notice also defendants had not appeared even though it was kept open to the defendants for appearance. In the order sheet dated 10.09.2009 there is clear office note that the notice to the defendant No.2 by RPAD returned as served. Even there was an opportunity given to defendants to lead their evidence on 15.12.2009 and after their absence on next date of hearing also then only stage for defendants’ evidence was closed. All these materials were considered by the Trial Court and even extracted the admission in paragraphs 13 and 14 and having taken note of these are

¶46

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶47

the material available on record comes to the conclusion that no sufficient cause is shown by the appellants to comes to a conclusion that there was no notice. Inspite of efforts are made by the Court to serve the notice, they did not choose to appear and contest the matter on service of notice.

¶48

Having considered both oral and documentary

¶49

evidence placed on record, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the Misc. No.23/2013 since they have not made out sufficient cause to set aside the order of the Trial Court. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal to comes to a other conclusion.

¶50

In view of the submission made by the respondents’ counsel and also the counsel for the appellants that the appellants claims that this is a property of military and the respondent claims that this is an independent property of the respondent and even ready to get the relief of declaration before the Court by paying the Court fee also. When such submissions are made and

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:42355 MFA No. 1479 of 2024

¶52

11 -

¶53

there are rival claim by both the parties, it is appropriate to give liberty to the parties to approach the appropriate Court to claim their relief with regard to title is concerned in any independent proceedings.

¶54

With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.

¶55

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶56

Union of India v. Sri R Raghuva Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Sri R Raghuva Reddy

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

Mrs Cheluvamma Vs Nil

Vysya Co. Operative Bank Ltd., Vs R. Nagaraja

Yaragatupalli Radha Kumar Reddy Vs M Rukminiamma

Smt. Deepika S., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Umesh H R Vs Sri Narayanappa

Smt Bhagyalakshmi E Vs Sri Adinarayana Swamy