Defendant appealed against concurrent decrees granting permanent injunction to plaintiff over suit land. Courts below found plaintiff in possession based on RTC extracts and defendant's own admission. High Court declined interference, holding no perversity and no substantial question of law arose.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1069 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SON OF NEMOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O GANDHI BAZAR OPP. MATHURA HOTEL SHIVAMOGGA 577201
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARVIND C DESAI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.58/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE 31.05.2017 PASSED IN OS No.1016/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA BY DISMISSING THE SUIT.,
NC: 2024:KHC:39157 RSA No. 1069 of 2021
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2021 passed in R.A No.58/2017 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017, passed in O.S.1016/2010 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
NC: 2024:KHC:39157 RSA No. 1069 of 2021
defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property.
appearance and filed detailed written statement and contended that the very identity and existence of the property is disputed and further, it is the contention of the
NC: 2024:KHC:39157 RSA No. 1069 of 2021
defendant that the land in question is not Inam land and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.
examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and produced 22 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P1 to P22. The defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.D1 to D10.
on record, by its judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017, decreed the suit restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred R.A.No.58/2017, on the file of the First Appellate Court and same was contested by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after
considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 24.02.2021, dismissed the appeal consequently confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1016/2010. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:39157 RSA No. 1069 of 2021
was confirmed by the First Appellate Court resulting in filing of RSA No.889/2013 before this Court and the same is pending consideration before this Court.
the RTC extracts produced at Exs.P1 to P7 arrived at a conclusion that, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, though the revenue documents do not confer any title in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, however, the RTC extracts at Ex.P1 to P7 demonstrate the possession of the property is with the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, as both the Courts below have concurred with regard to the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the both the Courts below and accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:39157 RSA No. 1069 of 2021
dismissed as devoid of merits.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
CH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property warranted interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Rao
Mohammad Rafiq
E.S.Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
