Allowed

Sri Doddaiah v. Smt Gowramma

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024RFA/889/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a decreed suit for permanent injunction over disputed land claimed by both parties under Hakkupathra. Defendants had filed no written statement or evidence. The High Court set aside the decree, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with defendant participation, imposed cost and status quo.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court decree set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity to file written statement; Rs.5,000 cost payable by appellants; parties directed to appear on 25.11.2024; status

Sri Doddaiah Vs Smt Gowramma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:44303 RFA No. 889 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2022 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. DODDAIAH, SON OF MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT EWS 104, 1ST D MAIN, 8TH B CROSS, VALAGERAHALLI, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶9

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI. RAJU, SON OF MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22, 7TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶11

(BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. GOWRAMMA, WIFE OF SRI. RUDRAPPA, DAUGHTER OF SRI. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44303 RFA No. 889 of 2022

¶16

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 060.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. GANGARAJU C, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2021 PASSED IN OS No. 3347/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LX ADD. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING, THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2021 passed by the LX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru(CCH-61) in O.S.No.3347/2017 in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:44303 RFA No. 889 of 2022

¶26

the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

¶27

The parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶29

The plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.16, site No.146A, measuring 20 X 20 feet, situated at Valagerehalli village, Gandhinagara, Kengeri, Bangalore South Taluk, sanctioned by the Block Development Officer vide order dated 13.05.1972 by Hakkupathra. On 02.05.2017, the plaintiff started construction of a residential house. At that time, the defendants, who are strangers to the suit schedule property, without semblance of right interfered with the construction and stopped the construction. The plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police. The police advised the plaintiff to approach the competent civil court as the matter is civil in nature. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:44303 RFA No. 889 of 2022

¶32

Defendants, on receipt of summons, tendered

¶33

appearance but not filed written statement.

¶34

The Trial Court formulated points for

¶35

consideration as under;

¶36

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, defendant No.1 and 2 have disturbed the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?

¶37

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is entitled for the relief, as prayed for?

¶38

3) What decree or order?

¶39

Plaintiff to substantiate her respective claims,

¶40

examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.10 documents. The defendants, inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, have not adduced any evidence.

¶41

The Trial Court, on examining the material on

¶42

record answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant contended

¶44

that due to some communication gap between the advocate and defendants, the defendants did not file the

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44303 RFA No. 889 of 2022

¶46

statement of objections. By the time the defendants could file their objections, the Trial Court decreed the suit, which is nothing but ex parte judgment. He further contended that the appellants/defendants have good grounds and merits in the case and request this Court to provide an opportunity to file a statement of objections and contest the matter to meet the ends of justice and remind back the matter to the Trial Court. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent objected to the same and supported the judgment of the Trial Court. He contended that in spite of providing sufficient opportunities to the appellants, they did not filed statement of objections and contested the suit. Hence, prayed for dismissing the suit.

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material placed on record.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:44303 RFA No. 889 of 2022

¶51

On perusal of record, the points that would

¶52

arise for consideration is as under:

¶53

Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court call for interference?

¶54

Whether the matter be remitted back to the Trial Court to provide opportunity to the appellants to contest the case?

¶55

The plaintiff and defendants claim to be the owners of the suit schedule property under Hakkupathra. The plaintiff produced documents to show that she is in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants also tried to put up construction over the suit schedule property, claiming their right over the suit schedule property. When both parties claim their right over the suit schedule property, it is necessary for the Trial Court to allow the defendants to file written statement and to contest the matter. The defendant did not filed written statement, contested the matter, and was not even able to cross-examine the P.W.1. Such being the case, this Court

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44303 RFA No. 889 of 2022

¶57

feels it necessary to allow the defendants to file statement of objections and contest the matter in order to come to the right conclusion by the Trial Court about who is the owner of the suit schedule property and to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is required to be set aside and the matter required to be remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration by giving opportunity to the appellants/defendants to contest the matter.

¶58

For forgoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

a. The regular first appeal is allowed;

¶61

b. The judgment and decree dated 03.01.2021 passed by the LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.3347/2017 is hereby set aside;

¶62

c. The matter stands remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration by giving opportunity to the appellants/defendants to

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:44303 RFA No. 889 of 2022

¶65

file written statement and contest the matter;

¶66

d. The appellants shall pay Rs.5,000/- to the respondent as cost;

¶67

e. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the Trial Court on 25.11.2024 without waiting further notice from the Trial Court;

¶68

f. The Trial Court after providing opportunity to the defendants, shall dispose of the matter within one year from the date of first hearing of the case;

¶69

g. The parties are directed to maintain status quo till any order passed by the Trial Court after the remand.

¶70

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶71

HDK

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT: BHK

Sri Doddaiah v. Smt Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Doddaiah v. Smt Gowramma

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

Smt. Malathy Desikan Vs Smt. R Venkatalakshmamma

Smt. M. Manjula Vs Dr.C.Parvathi

Prakash @ Neni Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Vinoda M M Vs Smt. Gayathri

Smt Premavathi Vs Commissioner of Corporation

M P Srinivas Vs C Omkarappa