Dismissed

M Ravikumar @ Ravi v. Sri v Venkateshappa

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024RFA/303/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by defendants against a decree of permanent injunction based on registered sale deeds and tax/electricity receipts. The court found the plaintiff's title and possession adequately proved, no evidence or cross-examination offered by defendants, no case for remand.

What did the court decide?

None granted; judgment and decree of O.S.2139/2006 confirming permanent injunction upheld.

M Ravikumar @ Ravi Vs Sri v Venkateshappa — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9093 RFA No. 303 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2011 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶8

M KRISHNA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT IBBLUR VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, AGARA POST, AGARA HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶9

…APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SRI A SOMA RAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI V VENKATESHAPPA, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.86/2, IBBLUR VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-34.

¶14

SRI M RAJENDRA @ RAJU, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.81/1, IBBLUR VILLAGE, SARJAPURA ROAD, AGARA POST, AGARA HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI K NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:9093 RFA No. 303 of 2011

¶19

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, O-41, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2010 PASSED IN O.S.2139/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard.

¶23

This appeal is arising from the judgment and decree in O.S. No.2139/2006 on the file of XLIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-45). The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No.6 (old Khata No.151) measuring 60 feet, east to west and 30 feet, north to south, located in Bommanahalli CMC, Bangalore.

¶24

The suit is filed on the premise that the defendant No.1 sold the property under registered sale deed dated 13.11.1989 in favour of P.S. Gunashekar. It is further stated that on 23.09.1999 plaintiff's father purchased the said property from P.S. Gunashekar. It is further stated that the defendants started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property as such, the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:9093 RFA No. 303 of 2011

¶27

suit is filed against original vendor /defendant No.1 and his three sons namely defendants No.2 to 4.

¶28

The defendant No.1, the person who sold the property remained ex-parte. He did not contest the suit. Remaining defendants namely defendants No.3 and 4 filed the written statement and disputed the sale deed. The defendant No.2 did not contest the suit.

¶29

The Trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff led his evidence. He produced two sale deeds and encumbrance certificate and tax paid receipts and also the receipts for having paid the electricity bill pertaining to the suit schedule property. There was no cross-examination to the plaintiff. No evidence was led on behalf of defendants. The Trial Court based on the material placed on record has concluded that the plaintiff has established his title over the suit schedule property and granted a decree for permanent injunction.

¶30

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the defendants No.3 and 4 are in appeal. The defendant No.2 did not file the appeal and accepted the judgment and decree.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:9093 RFA No. 303 of 2011

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the defendants No.3 and 4/appellants would submit that the sale deed alleged to have been executed by the father of defendants No.3 and 4 is not proved. The Trial Court erred in granting a decree based on the documents placed before the Court. The Trial Court ought to have insisted for strict proof of sale deed marked at Exhibits P1 and P3. He would further submit that merely because there was no cross examination by the defendants, it does not mean that the case of the plaintiff is established. Alternatively, he would also submit that an opportunity is not granted to the defendants to contest the case and matter be remitted to the Trial Court and affording an opportunity to the defendants to contest the matter.

¶34

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar.

¶35

The following points arise for consideration;

¶36

(a) Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit property?

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9093 RFA No. 303 of 2011

¶38

(b) Whether the appellants have made out a case to remand the matter for fresh consideration by providing an opportunity to the appellants to lead evidence?

¶39

Admittedly, the suit is based on the registered sale deed dated 13.11.1989 and 23.09.1999. In terms of the registered sale deed dated 13.11.1989 marked at Ex.P3, the defendant No.1 has sold the property to one P.S. Gunashekar and the said P.S. Gunashekar 10 years later i.e. in the year 1999 sold the property to the plaintiff's father and sale deed dated 23.09.1999 is marked at Ex.P1. It is relevant to note that the original vendor remained ex-parte. He did not contest the suit and out of three sons of the original vendor, only two sons contested by filing the written statement and other son did not file the written statement. There was no cross-examination to the evidence led by the plaintiff. The documents produced by the plaintiff are not challenged. The Trial Court has referred to the said document which are public documents which are admissible in evidence and based

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9093 RFA No. 303 of 2011

¶41

on the title deeds has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.

¶42

In addition to that there are other documents namely the tax paid receipt, bill having paid the electricity charges to establish that the plaintiff is in occupation of the property.

¶43

Though, it is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Trial Court could not have granted a decree only on the basis of the documents produced by the plaintiff, this Court does not find any error in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which relied upon registered sale deeds and the tax paid receipt to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.

¶44

Though, it is urged that the Trial Court did not grant the opportunity to the defendants to contest the suit, the records do not support the said contention. The suit is filed in the year 2006 and the suit is decreed in the year 2010. Despite having filed written statement, the defendants No.3 and 4 did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff. Why the defendants remained absent when

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:9093 RFA No. 303 of 2011

¶47

the case was listed for cross-examination of plaintiff and when the case was listed for evidence of the defendants is not properly explained. Apart from raising a contention that the sale deed is not executed by the defendants No.1 and 2, defendants No.3 and 4 did not raise any other specific contention. They did not produce any documentary evidence before the Trial Court or even before this Court. Application is not filed for production of additional documents. Under these circumstances, this Court is not able to accept the contention that sufficient opportunity is not given to defendants No.3 and 4 to contest the suit. The very fact that the defendant No.1 who has sold the property in the year 1989 has not chosen to contest the suit and the very fact that he has not taken any steps in his lifetime to question the sale deed of the year 1989 would lead to the conclusion that the transaction has taken place as averred by the plaintiff.

¶48

Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:9093 RFA No. 303 of 2011

¶50

¶51

by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Court pass the

¶52

following:-

¶53

ORDER

¶54

a) The appeal is dismissed.

¶55

b) The judgment and decree in O.S. No.2139/2006

¶56

passed by the XLIV Additional City Civil & Sessions

¶57

Judge, Bangalore (CCH-45) is confirmed.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

M Ravikumar @ Ravi v. Sri v Venkateshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Ravikumar @ Ravi v. Sri v Venkateshappa

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

M/S Venkis Mineral Water Products Vs M/S Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (Kmf)

R Akkaiamma @ Vijayalakshmi Vs Smt Padmamma

Madesh N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vani Ranganath W/O. Ranganatha Naidu Vs the Karnataka Slum Clearance

Sri Muninarasappa Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs Sri S N Sreerama Raju

Sri P M Pai S/O Late P Venkatesh Pai Vs Canara Bank