First appeal against dismissal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction over suit land. The High Court found plaintiffs failed to prove genealogy or title, affirmed the trial court decree dismissing the suit.
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: 2024:KHC:34364-DB RFA No. 1664 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1664/2013 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. K R RAMESH, ADV.)
AND:
…APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF BEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560087.
RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE RESIDING AT DINNUR VILLAGE, KADUGODI PLANTATIONS, KADUGODI POST, BANGALORE-560 067.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJATH D.V., ADV. FOR SRI G MANIVANNAN, ADV. FOR R5 R1-3, 9 AND 10 H/S V/O 13.02.2023 R4 STANDS ABATED V/O 12.11.2019 R6-8 SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.4.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1032/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs No.2 and 5, challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2013 passed in O.S.No.1032/2008 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III (Sessions), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short “the trial Court”)wherein the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed.
before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
Sri.K.R.Ramesh for the appellants and learned counsel Sri.Rajath for Sri.G.Manivannan, learned counsel for
NC: 2024:KHC:34364-DB RFA No. 1664 of 2013
respondent No.5. Perused the records, including the records of the trial Court.
possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the sole surviving legal heirs of the said Dundiga @ Muniga and hence they are the absolute owners of the property. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendants No.1 to 4 executed a sale deed dated 27.05.2003 in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant No.5 and that the defendants No.1 to 4 do not have any manner of right, title or interest in respect of the suit property. Hence, they filed a suit seeking for the reliefs aforementioned.
Gajjiga @ Gajji had one son namely Gajji Muniyappa, who in turn had 3 sons, namely Munishamappa, Hanumappa and Munaiah @ Muniyappa (defendant No.4). That defendant No.1 was the wife of Munishamappa and the wife and son of Hanumappa are defendant Nos.2 and 3. Hence, it is contended that the suit property belongs to ancestors of defendants No.1 to 4. That defendants No.1 to 4 being absolute owners of the suit property executed registered Sale Deed dated 27.05.2003, conveying the suit property in favour of defendant No.5 and consequently defendant No.5 is the owner of the suit property. Hence, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
appreciation of the oral and documentary material on record, has held that the plaintiff No.5 who was examined
as PW.1 deposed that the suit property was gifted by Dundiga @ Muniga in favour of Vasanthappa and Gejjilappa and that she has not seen the documents and that the said documents are with plaintiff No.2. Hence, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that there is inconsistency in the pleadings and evidence since it is pleaded that the plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit property by succession. Further, it is held that plaintiffs have not produced any document to establish their title over the suit property. The trial Court further, appreciating the material on record has recorded a finding that by virtue of IHC No.4/1994-95, defendants No.1 to 4 were recognized as descendants of Dundiga @ Muniga. Hence, the trial Court recorded a finding that defense of 5th defendant is more probable and dismissed the suit.
counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Genealogy (Ex.P1) has been produced. Mere production of Genealogy as per Ex.P1 is not sufficient, having regard to the fact that the defendants have specifically denied the Genealogy as stated by the plaintiffs in the plaint.
the plaintiffs/appellants that the defendants have not disputed that the property has been granted to Dundiga @ Muniga. It is the specific contention of the defendants and in terms of what is stated at paragraph 17 of the written statement that defendants No.1 to 4 are the successors of the said Dundiga @ Muniga and the revenue entry as per IHC No.4/1994-95 has been entered recognizing the same. Having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs have not produced any documents to prove the Genealogy as well as the fact that their ancestors have been granted suit property, no ground has been made out by the appellants to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:34364-DB RFA No. 1664 of 2013
trial Court. Accordingly, the above appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits, and the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court is affirmed.
Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs proved their title and succession to the suit property granted to Dundiga @ Muniga?
Whether the sale deed dated 27.05.2003 executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 was not binding on the plaintiffs?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chikkamunishamappa
Smt. Muniyamma (D/O Late Gejjillappa)
Smt. Muniyamma (W/O Late Muniswamy)
Smt. Muniyamma (W/O Late Hanumappa)
Sri Muniyappa
Munaiah @ Muniyappa
S.G. Pandit
C.M. Poonacha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
