Remanded

The Secretary v. Sri S Chandrashekar

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024RFA/1101/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appealed decrees granting declaration and injunction over Sy.No.85, Bagalakunte village, founded on an occupancy rights order under the Inams Act. The High Court found the original register showed the application was by a different person for different land, indicating a concocted document, allowed additional evidence and remanded all suits.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC allowed; judgments and decrees in O.S.Nos.5537/1996, 5539/1996, 5541/1996, 5536/1996 and 5102/1999 set aside and matters remanded to the trial

The Secretary Vs Sri S Chandrashekar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1101 OF 2006 (INJ)

¶9

C/W

¶10

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1102 OF 2006 (INJ) REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1106 OF 2006 (INJ) REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1108 OF 2006 (INJ) REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1724 OF 2006 (DEC/INJ)

¶11

IN RFA No.1101/2006

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE 560001.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 560009.

¶17

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR PEENYA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 560058.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SMT SARITHA KULKARNI, HCGP)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI S CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SHRI SUBBARAJU R/AT BYRAPPA BUILDING, CHECKPOST ROAD T DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE57

¶24

SMT KAMALAKSHAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHA SHETTY NO 8384, PUSHKARANI ROAD YELAHANKA, BANGALORE 560 064

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. T NARAYANASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.21.9.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5537/96 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.

¶28

IN RFA No.1102/2006

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

THE SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE 560001

¶31

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE 560001

¶32

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 560009

¶33

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR PEENYA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶34

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶35

BANGALORE 560058

¶36

…APPELLANTS

¶37

(BY SMT SARITHA KULKARNI, HCGP)

¶38

AND:

¶39

SRI ABDUL NABI R S/O SHRI IBRAHIM SAHEB R/AT PILLAPPA BUILDING, M.M ROAD, T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE 57

¶40

SMT KAMALAKSHAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHA SHETTY NO. 8384, PUSHKARANI ROAD YELAHANKA BANGALORE 560 064

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. T NARAYANASWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶43

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.21.9.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5539/96 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.

¶44

IN RFA No.1106/2006

¶45

BETWEEN:

¶46

THE SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001

¶47

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE 560001

¶48

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 560009

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶51

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR PEENYA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 560058

¶52

…APPELLANTS

¶53

(BY SMT SARITHA KULKARNI, HCGP)

¶54

AND:

¶55

SRI BABU S/O SHRI HUSSAIN SAB R/AT PIPE LINE LINK ROAD T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE 57

¶56

SMT KAMALAKSHAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHA SHETTY NO 8384, PUSHKARANI ROAD YELAHANKA, BANGALORE 560 064

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI. T NARAYANA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶59

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.21.9.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5541/96 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.

¶60

IN RFA No.1108/2006

¶61

BETWEEN:

¶62

THE SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001.

¶63

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE 560001

¶64

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶66

¶67

BANGALORE 560009

¶68

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR PEENYA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 560058

¶69

…APPELLANTS

¶70

(BY SMT SARITHA KULKARNI, HCGP)

¶71

AND:

¶72

SRI THOMAS SABSTIAN S/O SHRI KURIAN DEVASYA R/AT NO 53, I MAIN ROAD GANGANAGAR BANGALORE

¶73

SMT KAMALAKSHAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHA SHETTY NO 8384, PUSHKARANI ROAD YELAHANKA BANGALORE 560 064

¶74

…RESPONDENTS

¶75

(BY SRI.T NARAYANASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶76

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.21.9.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5536/96 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶77

IN RFA No.1724/2006

¶78

BETWEEN:

¶79

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001

¶80

THE SPL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) BANGALORE DISTRICT, KRISHI BHAVAN, BANGALORE 560009.

¶81

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶83

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE 560009.

¶84

…APPELLANTS

¶85

(BY SMT SARITHA KULKARNI., HCGP)

¶86

AND:

¶87

SMT KAMALAKSHAMMA W/O SRI NARASIMHAIAH SETTY R/O BAGALAKUNTE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, REP.BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI B NAGARAJ PIN 560022.

¶88

…RESPONDENT

¶89

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶90

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT. 21.09.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.5102/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTION AND ETC.

¶91

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶92

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and

¶93

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶94

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶95

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶96

The above first appeals are filed by the defendant

¶97

challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶98

¶99

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶100

All the said appeals are taken up together for consideration and

¶101

the details are noticed hereunder for ready reference:

¶102

i) RFA No.1101/2006 is filed by the defendants – State challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.5537/1996 whereunder, the trial Court decreed the suit for injunction. The suit property in the said suit is site Nos.25 and 26 measuring 40 x 60 in Sy.No.85 of Bagalakunte Village, Yashavanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru Taluk.

¶103

ii) RFA No.1102/2006 is filed by the defendants- State challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.5539/1996, whereunder the trial Court decreed the suit for injunction. The suit property in the said suit is site Nos.42 and 43 measuring 40 x 60 in Sy.No.85 of Bagalakunte Village, Yashavanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru Taluk.

¶104

iii) RFA No.1106/2006 is filed by the defendants-State challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.5541/1996, whereunder the Trial Court decreed the suit for injunction. The suit property in the said suit is site Nos.27 and 28 measuring 40 x 60

¶105

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶106

in Sy.No.85 of Bagalakunte Village, Yashavanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru Taluk.

¶107

iv) RFA No.1108/2006 is filed by the defendants-State challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.5536/1996 whereunder the Trial Court decreed the suit for injunction. The suit property in the said suit is site No.16 measuring 105 x 120 in Sy.No.85 of Bagalakunte Village, Yashavanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru Taluk.

¶108

iv) RFA No.1724/2006 is filed by the defendants-State challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.5102/1999, whereunder the suit for declaration and injunction has been decreed by the Trial Court. The suit property is Sy.No.85 measuring 3 acres situated at Bagalkunte Village.

¶109

It is forthcoming from the aforementioned, that O.S. No.5102/1999 is a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the entire Sy.No.85 measuring 3 acres, in respect of which the RFA No.1724/2006 is filed. The other suits are suits for injunction and the declaration made in O.S. No.5102/1999 would also determine the rights of the plaintiffs in the other

¶110

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶111

suits since the plaintiffs in the other suits claim to be agreement holders and GPA holders of the GPAs executed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.5102/1999. Hence, the facts in RFA No.1724/2006 which arises out of O.S. No.5102/1999 are noticed.

¶112

The parties will be referred to as per their rank

¶113

before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶114

It is the case of the plaintiff that he was a tenant in respect of the suit property under an inamdar. He filed an application in Case Nos.65/1959-60 before the Special Deputy Commissioner for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.7.1966 passed under Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954¹ occupancy rights were granted in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to which the name of the plaintiff was mutated in respect of the suit property vide MR No.3/1988-89 and thereafter the name of the plaintiff has been entered in the revenue records. That the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. That when the

¶115

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Inams Act’

¶116

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶117

defendants attempted to interfere with the property of the plaintiff, she filed a suit in O.S. No.668/1992 for injunction which was decreed.

¶118

It is the further case of the plaintiff that since the 2^nd defendant initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964² that the plaintiff filed W.P. No.26248/1995 challenging the order passed by the 2^nd defendant. The Writ Petition is disposed of vide order dated 09.10.1998, wherein the plaintiff was directed to approach the civil Court to protect the title. Hence, the suit was filed. The reliefs claimed as per the amended plaint are extracted hereunder for ready reference:

¶119

a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property;

¶120

ai) to declare that the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Dist, Bangalore in Revision (b) 18/95-96 dated 15.6.1995 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff;

¶121

aa) consequently to pass a judgment and decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their

¶122

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KLR Act’

¶123

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶124

employees and their servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property;

¶125

b) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

¶126

c) Cost of the proceedings.

¶127

The defendants entered appearance and filed

¶128

written Statement contending that the suit property is not an Inam land but is a Government gomal land. The defendants have also denied that the plaintiff was a tenant under the Inamdar. It is the specific contention of the defendant that the plaintiff in collusion with one Gopalaiah, Village Accountant, got her name entered in the RTC illegally and pursuant to order dated 15.06.1995, the entries in the RTC were cancelled. Further, it is contended that the relief sought for in respect of the order of Special Deputy Commissioner is barred by limitation and the said order has become final by virtue of dismissal in W.P. No.26248/1995.

¶129

Consequent to the pleadings of the parties, the Trial

¶130

Court framed the following issues and additional issues:

¶131

12 -

¶132

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶133

ISSUES

¶134

1. Whether the plaintiff proves her title to the suit property?

¶135

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration as sought for?

¶136

3. What decree or order?

¶137

ADDL.ISSUES.

¶138

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that order dated 15-8-1985 passed by the 2^nd defendant is illegal and arbitrary?

¶139

2. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration regarding the order dated 15-8- 1985 as the same is barred by limitation?

¶140

3. Whether the plaintiff proves her possession over the suit property?

¶141

4. Is she entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, etc. from interfering with her possession?

¶142

5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC?

¶143

6. Whether the suit is properly valued ad whether the court fee paid is sufficient?

¶144

On behalf of plaintiff, her power of attorney holder

¶145

B.Nagaraj examined himself as PW.1. Exs.P1 to P18 have been marked in evidence. On behalf of defendants, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk has been examined as DW.1. Exs.D1 to D8 have been marked in evidence. The Trial Court by its

¶146

13 -

¶147

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶148

judgment and decree dated 21.09.2005, partly decreed the suit

¶149

and passed the following order:

¶150

“Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed.

¶151

It is declared that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. It is further declared that the order dated 15.06.1995 passed by the 2^nd defendant is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.

¶152

Suit of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction is dismissed.

¶153

Plaintiff is directed to pay the deficit court fee as observed in para 21 of the judgment.

¶154

Office shall draw up decree after the payment of deficit court fee by the plaintiff.”

¶155

Being aggrieved, RFA No.1724/2006 is filed.

¶156

This Court by order dated 18.06.2009 admitted the

¶157

above appeals. Thereafter, by order dated 26.10.2010 this Court passed the following order:

¶158

“Having heard the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Government Advocate has to be directed to produce the original Register maintained in the office of the Special Dy. Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore for the year 1959-60,

¶159

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶160

to show the Application filed by different parties and this order passed thereon by the respective Dy. Commissioner on such Application.

¶161

Two weeks time is granted.”

¶162

(emphasis supplied)

¶163

11. Subsequently, by order dated 04.11.2010, this

¶164

Court ordered as follows:

¶165

“The matter was heard in detail.

¶166

After hearing, the court had entertained a doubt about the genuinely of the documents produced by the Respondent plaintiff. The Respondent is claiming right over the land in question on the ground that the land has been regranted to him under sec.5 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1954.

¶167

According to Government, the land in question is a gomal land and could not be the subject matter of regrant by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore.

¶168

Considering the rival submissions, this court on 26.10.2010 had directed the Government Advocate to produce the Register maintained in the office of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, for the year 1959-60 in order to ascertain whether the Respondent -plaintiff had really filed an application for regrant of the land in question.

¶169

The Government Advocate has produced the original register which discloses that the case relied upon by the plaintiff is not pertaining to the plaintiff but it is an application filed by one Chikka Arasappa S/o Narasimhaiah claiming 3 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.44/2 of Bagalkunte village.

¶170

From looking into this document, it is clear that the document relied upon by the plaintiff's are

¶171

15 -

¶172

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶173

concocted. When the documents are concocted and based on the concocted document if the plaintiff has filed a suit to knock off the valuable property of the Gomal land which is now comes within the Corporation City of Bangalore, it is a case where criminal prosecution has also to be launched.

¶174

In the circumstances, we direct the learned counsel for the respondent to get the instructions from his client and make his submission.

¶175

Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to 8.11.2010.”

¶176

(emphasis supplied)

¶177

Thereafter, this Court by order dated 08.11.2010,

¶178

passed the following order:

¶179

“This appeal is by the defendant. Suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking right over the land in question on the ground that it has been granted to her under Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954.

¶180

During the course of hearing this Court passed an order on 04.11.2010 on the basis of the original register produced by the defendant indicating that the plaintiff is not the applicant and the application is filed by one Chikka Arasappa, S/o.Narasimhaiah claiming 3 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.44/2 of Bagalkunte village. Indeed this Court was of the view that the document on which the plaintiff has relied, is concocted. Indeed it is to be noticed that the said document is not produced along with an application.

¶181

Smt.Revathy Adinath Narde, learned HCGP appearing for the defendants submits that she would make a necessary application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce the said

¶182

16 -

¶183

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶184

document. She shall do so. Copies shall be served on the counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶185

Objections to the application, if any, in the meanwhile.

¶186

List it for hearing along with the application on 15.11.2010.”

¶187

(emphasis supplied)

¶188

Along with the above appeal, the appellants have

¶189

filed an application on 12.11.2010 under Order 41 Rule 27, r/w

¶190

Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure³ producing the following documents:

¶191

i) Copy of Form No.VIII – Register of Bagalagunte Village.

¶192

ii) Copy of file in INA case No.65/1959-60 of Bagalagunte Village regarding application under Section 5 of the Inams Act.

¶193

iii) Copy of RTC extracts from the year 1959-60 and 2010.

¶194

It is also relevant to note that in

¶195

RFA.Nos.1102/2006, 1106/2005 and 1108/2006 applications

¶196

3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’

¶197

17 -

¶198

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶199

dated 12.11.2010 under Order 41 rule 27 CPC., have been filed

¶200

to produce documents along with the said applications.

¶201

Heard submissions of learned High Court Government Pleader⁴ Smt. Saritha Kulkarni for the appellantState, Sri Muniyappa, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri VijayaKumar K., learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 in RFA Nos.1101/2006, 1102/2006, 1106/2006, 1108/2006 and Sri VijayaKumar K. for sole respondent in RFA No.1724/2006.

¶202

Since copies of the documents were not produced along with the application, during the course of hearing, learned HCGP., has filed a memo dated 07.08.2024 placing on record the following documents:

¶203

a) Original register pertaining to Form No.8 of Bagalakunte Village;

¶204

b) Entire original file in INA case No.65/59-60;

¶205

Having heard the submissions of both the learned counsels the questions that arise for consideration are:

¶206

4 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘HCGP’

¶207

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶208

i) Whether the applications filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC filed by the appellants is required to be allowed?

¶209

ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is required to be interfered with?

¶210

It is forthcoming that, this Court by order dated

¶211

26.10.2010, after hearing the above appeal for sometime had directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the original Registers maintained in the office of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition for the year 1959-60. Consequent to the same, the documents in terms of the order dated 26.10.2010 having been produced, this Court recorded a prima-facie finding that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff is concocted and that the application has been filed by one Chikka Arasappa, S/o.Narasimhaiah claiming 3 acres 19 guntas in Sy. No.44/1 of Bagalagunte Village. Subsequently, this Court by order dated 08.11.2010, has noticed that the order dated 04.11.2010, was passed on the basis of the original Register produced by the appellant-defendant and that the said documents have not been produced with an application, recorded the submission made by the learned

¶212

19 -

¶213

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶214

HCGP that an application would be filed and the documents would be produced. Accordingly, application has been filed by the defendant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with copies of the documents as noticed above.

¶215

Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC permits production of additional evidence before the appellate Court. Sub-Rule (1)(b) enables the appellate Court to allow production of such additional evidence, if the same is required to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause.

¶216

It is forthcoming from the copies of the documents produced along with the application, as well as a perusal of the original documents produced today along with the memo that, the original Register pertaining to Form No.VIII of Bagalkunte village pertains to proceedings under Section 5 of the Inams Act. The same discloses that the entry at Sl.No.46 is with regard to the INA case No.65/59-60 and the said entry discloses that the order has been passed on 21.7.1959, in respect of Sy. No.44/2 of an extent of three acres 36 guntas and the name of the applicant is Chikka Arasappa,

¶217

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶218

S/o.Narasimhaiah. The original case file pertaining to INA case No.65/59-60 in the Court of Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru is also produced and the various documents produced which are contained in the said original file are detailed at Sl. No.2(a) to 2(j) in the memo dated 7.8.2024 filed by the learned HCGP.

¶219

It is forthcoming that the claim of the plaintiff to the suit property is by virtue of being granted occupancy rights pursuant to order dated 23.7.1966 passed in INA No.65/59-60 by the Court of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore. A certified copy of the said order dated 23.7.1966 has been marked as Ex.P5.

¶220

As noticed hereinabove, the case details in terms of Ex.P5, if noticed in the original records, pertains to proceedings consequent to an application made by Chikka Arasappa, S/o.Narasimhaiah in respect of Sy.No.44/2 of an extent of 3 acres 36 guntas and the order in respect of the said case is passed on 21.7.1959 and not 23.7.1966 as per Ex. P5 i.e., the case of the plaintiff. It is clear that as per the original

¶221

21 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶222

record the said INA case No.65/59-60 pertains to Sy.No.44/2 and Ex.P5 pertains to the suit property i.e., Sy.No.85.

¶223

Having regard to the prima facie finding recorded in the order dated 04.11.2010, copies of the documents produced along with the application and the original produced along with the memo, it is clear that the said documents are required for the adjudication of the rights of the parties.

¶224

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-plaintiff that the defendant-State had given an endorsement that the original documents were lost and that the said documents were not produced earlier. It is further contended that the defendants have not stated as to why the original documents could not be produced earlier. Learned counsel for Respondent-plaintiff further relies on the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.668/1992 (Ex.P2) .

¶225

It is forthcoming that O.S. No.668/1992 was filed by the present plaintiff was for injunction. In the said case, the defendants who are the defendants in the present suit did not enter appearance and contest the suit.

¶226

22 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶227

The documents now sought to be produced in the

¶228

present case are vital for the purpose of adjudicating the rights of the parties. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said documents that are required to be taken on record for the purpose of adjudicating the issues that arise for consideration in the present suit.

¶229

It is further relevant to note that the trial Court has recorded a finding that no documents have been produced by the defendants to demonstrate that Ex.P5 is a concocted document and that adverse inference has been drawn against the defendants for non production of the relevant Registers. The trial Court has further noticed that DW.1 has stated that entire extent of Sy.No.85 of Bagalakunte Village was Gomala land. However, PW.1 has deposed that the suit property was Inam land and not Gomal Land. The Trial Court noticing the order dated 22.7.1966 (Ex.P5) has recorded a finding that since 3 acres of land is declared as Inam land, the same negates the case of the defendants. Further, the trial Court has, considering the contention of the defendants and upon noticing Exs.D1 to D3 to D5 - RTC extracts noticed that the extent in

¶230

23 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶231

the said documents is 38 acres 27 guntas and not 43 acres and 1 guntas in Sy.No.85.

¶232

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for Respondent-plaintiff that the case of the defendant that the entire extent is a Gomal land is not forthcoming from the material on record. However, learned HCGP has produced the original preliminary record. The entry at Sl.No.205 pertains to Survey number 85 and the extent is mentioned as 43 acres 1 guntas and in the column No.9 wherein, the occupant or superior holder of the land is required mentioned, it is entered as “¸ÀPÁðj UÉÆÃªÀiÁ¼À“. Learned HCGP has made available a copy of

¶233

the preliminary record and submits that the original preliminary record which has been produced this day before the Court being a bulky documents would seek leave of this court to produce the original before the Trial Court if the matter is remanded by this Court to the Trial Court. The said submissions made by the learned HCGP regarding the production of the original preliminary record is placed on record.

¶234

24 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶235

The Trial Court has recorded a finding that since there are no reasons given by the defendants for non production of the original documents, an adverse inference has been drawn and hence, the Trial Court has decreed the suit.

¶236

It is clear from the aforementioned that the documents now sought to be produced are relevant and necessary for adjudication of the question that arise for consideration. However, it is required to be noticed that an opportunity is required to be afforded to the plaintiffs to contest the case of the defendants. Hence, the question Nos.1 and 2 framed for consideration are answered in the affirmative.

¶237

It is just and proper that all the applications filed under Order 41 Rule 21 of CPC be allowed as well as the documents produced today along with the memo dated 7.8.2024 by the appellant, be taken on record and the judgment and decree of the trial Court be set aside and the matter be remanded to enable parties to adduce further evidence and to enable the trial Court to adjudicate upon the issues framed by it after considering the said material.

¶238

25 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶239

Since the suit is an old one, it is just and proper

¶240

that a date for appearance be fixed, for the parties to be present before the trial Court. Further, as noticed above, since O.S No.5102/1999 is the suit for declaration and injunction and since the other suits i.e., O.S. No.5537/1996 (in RFA No.1101/2006), O.S. No.5539/1996 (in RFA No.1102/2006), O.S. No.5541/1996 (in RFA No.1106/2006), O.S.No.5536/2006 (in RFA No.1108/2006) are suits for injunction and since the plaintiffs in the said suits for injunction claims through the plaintiff in O.S. No.5102/1999, it just and proper that the Trial Court treat O.S. No.5102/1999 as the main suit, adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶241

Hence, the following

¶242

ORDER

¶243

i) The applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in the aforementioned appeals are allowed and the documents produced along with the said applications as well as Memo dated 07.08.2024 in RFA.No.1724/2006 are taken on record.

¶244

26 - NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶245

ii) The above appeals are allowed.

¶246

iii) The judgment and decree dated 21.09.2005 passed by the XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, in O.S. Nos. 5537/1996, 5539/1996, 5541/1996, 5536/1996, 5102/1999 are set aside.

¶247

iv) The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶248

v) All the parties shall appear before the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 18.09.2024 without expecting any further notice. It shall be open to the Prl. City Civil Judge to assign the suits to an appropriate Court.

¶249

vi) All contentions of the parties are left open.

¶250

vii) Registry to send the records of the Trial Court as well as the documents filed along with the applications under Order 41 rule 27 as also the original documents filed along with memo dated 07.08.2024 to the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru forthwith.

¶251

viii) The original documents filed by the appellant in RFA No.1724/2006 along with the Memo dated 07.08.2024 are to be sent through safe custody by the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Karnataka to the Registrar of City Civil and

¶252

27 -

¶253

NC: 2024:KHC:32342-DB RFA No. 1101 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1102 of 2006 RFA No. 1106 of 2006 RFA No.1108 of 2006 RFA No. 1742 of 2006

¶254

Sessions Court, Bengaluru to be put up along with the file of the Trial Court.

¶255

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶256

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶257

BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

The Secretary v. Sri S Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary v. Sri S Chandrashekar

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

Kumari Vs Sri M Krishnamurthy

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Gokula Education

The Pr. Commisioner of Income Tax Cit (a) Vs M/S Allegis Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Kariyappa @ Byrappa Vs Smt Chikkamma

Eranaika Vs Chanappa

Sri Manohar Vs State of Karnataka