Dismissed

Sri Narayanappa @ Doddanarayanappa Since Dead by Lrs v. Sri. Gopalappa

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024RSA/1043/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A second appeal over a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning agricultural land. The plaintiff had earlier sold the property via a registered sale deed he never challenged, so both courts found his claim of ownership unsupported. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Narayanappa @ Doddanarayanappa Since Dead by Lrs… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NARAYANAPPA @ DODDANARAYANAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

¶8

AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 12.07.2024 LR'S OF DECEASED APPELLANT ON RECORD AS APPELLANT NO.1 TO 8 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT.

¶9

SMT. PILLAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ DODDANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶10

Digitally signed by B VEENA KUMARI

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. RATHNAMMA, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ DODDANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. MANJULA, D/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA @ DODDANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶14

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ DODDANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶17

DODDANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶18

SRI BYREGOWDA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ DODDANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶19

SMT. KAMALAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ DODDANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶20

SRI SHASHIKUMAR, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA @ DODDANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDING AT IDDALODU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶22

…APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY SRI. PRASANNA B.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P M., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SRI. GOPALAPPA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶26

SRI. NAGARAJ, DEAD BY HIS LRS, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶27

SRI. ADILAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶28

SRI. VINAY KUMAR S/O LATE NAGARAJ,

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶30

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶31

SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶32

SMT. VEENA D/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶33

SRI. NAGAVENAMMA W/O RAJANNA P. N., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶34

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT PERJENAHALLI VILLAGE VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK.

¶35

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.2/3, 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶36

SRI. CHIKKA KEMPANNA, S/O. LATE DODDANARAYNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT PERJENHALLI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK.

¶37

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT DODDAKORATI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK.

¶38

SMT. SAKAMMA, W/O. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/T PIDACHALAHALLI VILLAGE

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶40

MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK.

¶41

SRI. RAJANNA, S/O PILLA NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT PERJENAHALLI VILALGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK.

¶42

SRI. JAYARAM S/O. PILLA NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT PERJENAHALLI VILALGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK.

¶43

SMT. PUSHPA D/O PILLA NARAYNAPPA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KANITHHALLI VILLAGE, KONDENAHALLI POST, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2- R6 AND R11)

¶46

THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.26/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.145/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR.

¶47

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

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶49

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶50

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶51

This regular second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2020 passed in RA No.26/2018 by the I Additional District Judge, Kolar and the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.145/2011 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar.

¶52

For convenience, the parties are referred to; as per

¶53

their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

¶54

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- The Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants regarding suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property, having acquired the same under "Kandaya Moolaka Anubhava". The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from time immemorial, and he has raised crops. The name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue record as Dyavanna Mommga Narayanappa. The Defendant No.3 and his father Pilla Narayanappa, colluding with each other, got their

¶55

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶56

name entered in the revenue records regarding 1 acre 10 guntas as per MR No.3/2005-2006. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the order, preferred an appeal before the learned Assistant Commissioner in RA No.474/2008-09. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff.

¶57

It is contended that, the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

¶58

Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 filed the written statement and other defendants remained unrepresented before the trial Court and were placed ex-parte .

¶59

Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a common written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The suit schedule property originally belonged to the plaintiff, having acquired the same through the Inam Abolition grant measuring 2 acres 28 guntas. The plaintiff and his father have sold suit schedule property in favour of Chowdamma W/o Dodda

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶62

Narayanappa (mother of defendant No.1) under a registered Sale Deed dated 08.05.1964 in respect of land Sy.No.32 measuring 2 acres 28 guntas. Upon re-survey and phodi, the said land is assigned a new number as Sy.No.90/1. The revenue records stood in her name. Chowdamma and her husband were in possession of the suit schedule property, and after their demise, the legal representative i.e., defendant Nos.2 and 3, are in possession of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was the ancestral property of grandfather of the defendants, i.e., Dodda Thammanna and upon his demise, his son, Dodda Narayanappa, i.e., father of defendant Nos.1 to 3, succeeded to the suit schedule property. Dyavamma was the sister of Dodda Thamanna, and he gifted the said property in favour of Dyavamma. Dyavamma and the plaintiffs sold the suit schedule property in favour of Chowdamma in the year 1967. The plaintiffs have not challenged the registered sale deed executed in the year 1964.

¶63

It is contended that, late Pilla Narayanappa, who is the father of defendant No.3 purchased 1 acre 10 guntas of land under a registered sale deed dated 20.04.1966 from Peddanna @ Kannappa and revenue records stood in the name

¶64

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶65

of defendant No.3. Hence, it is contended that, after the death of their parents, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have partitioned the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶66

The original plaintiff filed the rejoinder to the written statement filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3, and it is contended that the suit schedule property was granted to the plaintiff by a special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Kolar Circle, and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that, the Sale Deed referred to by the defendants are all concocted and created. Hence, pray to decree the suit.

¶67

The trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues, and additional issues. The plaintiff, to establish his case, examined the power of attorney holder as PW1 and marked 18 documents and on the other hand, defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1, and examined 2 witnesses as DW-2 and 3 and marked 58 documents as Ex.D1

¶68

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶69

to Ex.D58. DW2 and DW3 did not tender for cross-examination. Further, the husband of defendant No.3 was examined as DW4. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, the assessing the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment dated 27.11.2017. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.145/2011, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.26/2018 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Kolar. The appellate Court, upon re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 03.10.2020 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal.

¶70

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶71

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and the same was granted to him by the special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He submits that, the defendants created the registered Sale Deed

¶72

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶73

in their names. He also submits that the defendants have admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in survey No.90/1. The Courts below have committed an error in ignoring the admission of the defendants regarding the ownership of the plaintiff to the land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.90/1. Hence, neither of the Courts below has properly appreciated the material on records and has committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He submits that, the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are arbitrary and erroneous, and the same are liable to be set aside. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶74

Perused the records. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶75

The plaintiff to substantiate his case, examined the

¶76

power of attorney as PW1 to prove that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. During the crossexamination, PW1 clearly admitted that the plaintiff and his father had sold the property bearing Sy.No.32 in favour of

¶77

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶78

Chowdamma, i.e., the mother of defendant No.1, under a registered sale deed dated 08.05.1964.

¶79

It is the case of the plaintiff that the property sold to the mother of defendant No.1 is Sy.No.32 and not Sy.No.90/1. It is the defence of the defendants that, Sy.No.32 is renumbered as Sy.No.90/1. The plaintiff has not produced any records to establish that both lands are different. The plaintiff and his father have sold the property in favour of Chowdamma, i.e., the mother of defendant No.1. The plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property, and further, the defendants have produced the documents Ex.D23 to show that the plaintiff and his father executed the registered Sale Deed in favour of Chowdamma and the defendants have also produced their documents Ex.D21 and Ex.D22, which discloses that the father of defendant No.3 purchased the remaining extent of 1 acre 30 guntas land bearing Sy.No.90/1. The plaintiff himself has admitted that the plaintiff and his father have sold the suit schedule property in favour of the mother of defendant No.1, the question of declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property does not arise.

¶80

12 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶82

Further, the plaintiff has not challenged the registered Sale Deed executed in favour of the mother of defendant No.1 and the sale deed executed in favour of the father of defendant No.3. The plaintiff has failed to establish that, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

¶83

The Courts below, considering the material placed on record to hold that, the plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. As observed above, the plaintiff has not produced any records to establish his title over the suit schedule property as of the date of the institution of the suit. It is a settled law that, the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs, and he cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant's case. The appellate Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others in AIR 2014 SC 937 held that the plaintiff is trying to take advantage of the weakness of the defendants without establishing his case and dismissed the appeal.

¶84

13 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:49599 RSA No. 1043 of 2021

¶86

The Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

¶89

(ii) The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed.

¶90

(iii) No order as to the costs.

¶91

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶92

¶93

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri Narayanappa @ Doddanarayanappa Since Dead by Lrs v. Sri. Gopalappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Narayanappa @ Doddanarayanappa Since Dead by Lrs v. Sri. Gopalappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K G Onkarappa Vs Sri K Sunil Kumar

Sharadhamma Vs Executive Engineer

Smt Sukanya Vs Sri Syed Abdul Ghani

Ajit Singh Bhandari, Vs Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority

Mohaboobi Vs Thahira Begum

Sri.G.L.Ramakrishnappa Vs Smt.Kadiramma