Second appeal by defendants' legal heirs against decreed suit for permanent injunction over agricultural land in Belagavi. Both courts below had found the plaintiff in possession. The High Court held the appellants failed to show the concurrent findings of fact were erroneous and dismissed the appeal at admission.
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-D:9036 RSA No. 100206 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100206 OF 2016 (INJ-)
BETWEEN:
1(A) SHRI. MADHAV S/O BALAKRISHNA KUSANE, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: H.NO. 1247, BASAVAN GALLI SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590016.
Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD
1(B) SMT. LATA PRATAP DHUNDUM, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:H.NO. 1366, BASAVAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590016.
S/O BALAKRISHNA KUSANE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O:H.NO. 1247, BASAVAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590016.
1(D) SHRI SUDHIR S/O BALAKRISHNA KUSANE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O:H.NO. 1247, BASAVAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590016.
1(E) SHRI. SUNIL S/O BALAKRISHNA KUSANE, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O:H.NO. 1247, BASAVAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590016.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHAFIAHAMAD B. SHAIK & SRI SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SHRI VAMAN GOVIND YALAJI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O:H.NO.572, MATH GALLI, BELAGAVI-590016.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.M.KULKARNI & SRI PRATIK SHIPURKAR)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 R/W ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.03.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.128/2008 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.544/2006 BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, BELAGAVI, DATED 26.05.2008, BY DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure1 , by the legal heirs of the original defendant No.1 and defendant 2 challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2015 passed in R.A.No.128/2008 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi2 and the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2008 passed in O.S.No.544/2006 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi3 , whereunder the suit for permanent injunction has been decreed by the Trial Court which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’
2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’
3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’
village, Belagavi4 having purchased the same vide registered Sale Deed dated 21.04.1980 and that he is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property by cultivating various crops like paddy, etc. That the defendants being the owner of neighboring agricultural lands in R.S.No.659 itself, are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction.
4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’
the total extent of 29 cares of 12 guntas along with two brothers namely Yallappa and Irappa under two registered Sale Deeds in the year 1968. That although they have purchased 26 acres 12 guntas, the vendor handed over possession of the entire extent of R.S.No.659 totally measuring 29 acres 12 guntas to the defendants and their two brothers. That the defendants sold a portion of the property owned by them vide two Sale Deeds dated 17.09.1968 and 04.10.1968 to an extent of 21 acres 12 guntas and 5 acres respectively. Hence, the plaintiff has no right over the suit property.
has been held that the plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit property and is cultivating various crops in the same and that he has sold sugarcane to the sugar factory by paying revenue to the Government.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9036 RSA No. 100206 of 2016
reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit property is a more probable one than the case of the defendants. Hence, the First Appellate Court has affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.
that both the plaintiff and the defendants have sold the property.
both the Courts having recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and that the defendants are trying to interfere with the same, the appellants have failed to demonstrate that the said concurrent findings of fact are erroneous and is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.
devoid of merit at the stage of admission itself.
Sd/JUDGE
Sh CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and the defendants were interfering with it could be disturbed in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balakrishna Ningappa Kusane (since deceased by his legal representatives)
Madhav s/o Balakrishna Kusane
Lata Pratap Dhundum
Anil s/o Balakrishna Kusane
Sudhir s/o Balakrishna Kusane
Vaman Govind Yalaji
C.M. Poonacha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
