Dismissed

Ganapateppa S/O Channabasappa Hongal v. Mahadevappa S/O Kallappa Hongal

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2024RSA/100941/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal challenging a permanent injunction suit, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff retained ownership and possession of the suit property as per the undisputed registered sale deed.

What did the court decide?

The Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Courts below stands confirmed.

Ganapateppa S/O Channabasappa Hongal Vs Mahadevappa S/O… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16947 RSA No. 100941 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶7

RSA NO. 100941 OF 2018 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GANAPATEPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA HONGAL, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: KYARKOPPA, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.

¶10

RAMESH S/O. GANGATEPPA HONGAL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KYARKOPPA, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.

¶11

ASHOK S/O. KALLAPPA HONGAL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KYARKOPPA, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.

¶12

… APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally VISHAL signed byVISHALNINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date:2024.11.26 10:58:19 +0530

¶16

MAHADEVAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA HONGAL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KYARKOPPA, TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.

¶17

… RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. G. S. SAVADATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.09.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.98/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.08.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.181/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DHARWAD, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16947 RSA No. 100941 of 2018

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Assailing the concurrent findings of facts recorded by

¶26

the Courts below, the defendants are before this court in this regular second appeal.

¶27

Parties herein are referred to as per their rank

¶28

before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶29

Suit for relief of permanent injunction in respect of Block No.65 measuring 2 acres 34 guntas out of which 4 guntas with the boundaries stated in the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). The case of the plaintiff is that he has purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 02.03.1994 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.6000/- and he is the owner in possession of the suit property, that when the plaintiff was putting up construction over the suit property,

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16947 RSA No. 100941 of 2018

¶31

the defendants tried to interfere with his possession and hence, the present suit.

¶32

On notice, the defendants appeared and filed

¶33

their written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the suit property, according to the defendants, there is an agreement of sale executed by plaintiff in favor of defendant No.1, for purchase of 3 guntas of land out of the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.1,06,000/- on 15.03.2009, that after receiving the consideration amount, the plaintiff is putting construction over the property in which the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had entered agreement.

¶34

The trial Court based on the pleadings framed necessary issues. In order to substantiate their claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, marked documents at Exs.P1 to P2. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1, two witnesses as DW2 and DW3, marked documents at Exs.D1 to D11. The trial Court

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16947 RSA No. 100941 of 2018

¶36

based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶37

Aggrieved, the defendants preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court while appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved, the defendants are before this Court in this regular second appeal.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the material on record.

¶39

Ex.P1-the revenue entry pertaining to Block No.65 totally measuring 2 acres 34 guntas, wherein, 4 guntas was standing in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P2 is the sale deed dated 02.03.1994 in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property which is not disputed by the defendants. According to the defendants, there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, wherein, the plaintiff agreed to sell 3 guntas out of the suit

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16947 RSA No. 100941 of 2018

¶41

land for Rs.1,06,000/- on 15.03.2009 and contend that defendants are in possession of the suit property. The agreement of sale is not produced before the Court by the defendants, entering into an agreement to sell does not transfer ownership rights or confer any title in favor of the defendants, trial Court assessing the entire oral and documentary evidence and in light of the undisputed fact that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property under Ex.P2, and plaintiff having established the possession, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for injunction and directed the defendants not to interfere into the plaintiff’s possession and construction in any manner.

¶42

The First Appellate Court being the last fact finding court has appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and arrived at a conclusion that under sale deed dated 02.03.1994 at Ex.P2, the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from one Mahaboobsab Rajesab Navalagundakar and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, the agreement as alleged by the

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16947 RSA No. 100941 of 2018

¶44

defendants is failed to be established and the suit in O.S. No.394/2013 filed by the defendants seeking for specific performance of contract based on the alleged agreement of sale has been dismissed. The First Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence. The manner in which the Courts below have assessed the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below does not warrant any interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and no substantial question of law

¶45

arises for consideration and this Court pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The Regular Second Appeal is hereby

¶48

dismissed .

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16947 RSA No. 100941 of 2018

¶50

¶51

i) The judgment and decree of the Courts below stands confirmed .

¶52

Sd/- (JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)

¶53

RH CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 10

Ganapateppa S/O Channabasappa Hongal v. Mahadevappa S/O Kallappa Hongal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganapateppa S/O Channabasappa Hongal v. Mahadevappa S/O Kallappa Hongal

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 Mallawwa Vs Smt Lalitavva

Smt Mariyamma Vs Christian Assembly

Sri Mohammed Essa Assarmattha Vs Smt. Jattamma

Basappa S/O Hanamappa Badiger Vs Kashavva Alias Radha W/O. Gopal Badiger

M/S.the Karnataka Theaters, Vs Sri.Annadaneshwar Vidya Vardhak Sangh

Vikramkraj S/O.Veerappa Keri Vs Yallappagouda Ramanagouda Patil