Seven regular second appeals were dismissed. The High Court held that plaintiffs failed to establish title as mutation entries lacked a lawful grant order, and defendants were confirmed as absolute owners via a prior decree.
Appeals dismissed confirming earlier judgments and decrees regarding property title and possession.
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 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1109 OF 2023 (INJ) C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1110 OF 2023 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1111 OF 2023 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1113 OF 2023 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1114 OF 2023 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1118 OF 2023 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2023 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1120 OF 2023 (INJ)
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
IN RSA NO.1109/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI P. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC:4909 RSA No. 1109 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 RSA No. 1111 of 2023 RSA No. 1113 of 2023 RSA No. 1114 of 2023 RSA No. 1118 of 2023 RSA No. 1119 of 2023 RSA No. 1120 of 2023
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 PASSED IN RA No. 193/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED IN OS No. 20/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
NC: 2024:KHC:4909 RSA No. 1109 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 RSA No. 1111 of 2023 RSA No. 1113 of 2023 RSA No. 1114 of 2023 RSA No. 1118 of 2023 RSA No. 1119 of 2023 RSA No. 1120 of 2023
IN RSA NO. 1110 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATARAMAPPA
S/O LATE HOLURU MUNISHWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
C/O MR. K.R MAHESH
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
S/O SRI. K.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.122/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMF, K.G.F. ITINERARY AT BANGARPET; DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.7/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
IN RSA NO. 1111 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
R GOPALAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 162.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, C/O MR K R MAHESH,
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 162.
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 162.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 PASSED IN RA No. 192/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED IN OS No. 08/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
IN RSA NO. 1113 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI P MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.PRAKASH K.A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:4909 RSA No. 1109 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 RSA No. 1111 of 2023 RSA No. 1113 of 2023 RSA No. 1114 of 2023 RSA No. 1118 of 2023 RSA No. 1119 of 2023 RSA No. 1120 of 2023
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 WITH RESPECT TO COUNTER CLAIM PASSED IN RA No. 15/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED IN OS No.20/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
IN RSA NO. 1114 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI AGASHAPPA
S/O LATE KURESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.06.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.123/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.G.F. ITINERARY AT BANGARPET DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 1.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.9/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
NC: 2024:KHC:4909 RSA No. 1109 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 RSA No. 1111 of 2023 RSA No. 1113 of 2023 RSA No. 1114 of 2023 RSA No. 1118 of 2023 RSA No. 1119 of 2023 RSA No. 1120 of 2023
IN RSA NO. 1118 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATARAMAPPA S/O LATE HOLURU MUNISHWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
C/O MR. K.R. MAHESH
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 SO FAR AS THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN RA.NO.12/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2022 IN SO FAR AS THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN OS.NO.7/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
IN RSA NO. 1119 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. AGASHAPPA S/O LATE KURESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:4909 RSA No. 1109 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 RSA No. 1111 of 2023 RSA No. 1113 of 2023 RSA No. 1114 of 2023 RSA No. 1118 of 2023 RSA No. 1119 of 2023 RSA No. 1120 of 2023
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 SO FAR AS THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN RA.NO.14/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2022 IN SO FAR AS THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN OS.NO.9/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
IN RSA NO. 1120 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
R GOPALAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS
NC: 2024:KHC:4909 RSA No. 1109 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 RSA No. 1111 of 2023 RSA No. 1113 of 2023 RSA No. 1114 of 2023 RSA No. 1118 of 2023 RSA No. 1119 of 2023 RSA No. 1120 of 2023
ALL ARE R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 162.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:4909 RSA No. 1109 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 RSA No. 1111 of 2023 RSA No. 1113 of 2023 RSA No. 1114 of 2023 RSA No. 1118 of 2023 RSA No. 1119 of 2023 RSA No. 1120 of 2023
C/O MR. K.R. MAHESH R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 162.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2023 SO FAR AS THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN RA.NO.13/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF ITINERARY AT BANGARPET. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2022 IN SO FAR AS THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT PASSED IN OS.NO.8/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
| - 14 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs
aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed in O.S.Nos.20/2017, 7/2017, 08/2017, 9/2017, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangarpet (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) by which, while dismissing the suits of the plaintiffs the counter claim of the defendants is decreed directing the plaintiffs to vacate the suit schedule properties within two months from the
date of judgment and decree and to put the defendant No.1 in the possession of the suit schedule properties. It is further directed that if plaintiffs fail to vacate the suit schedule properties within the above period, the defendants are at liberty to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule properties in accordance with law.
| - 15 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
preferred regular appeals in R.A.Nos.193/2022, 122/2022, 192/2022, 15/2023, 123/2022, 12/2023, 14/2023 and 13/2023 all on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF itinerary at Bangarpet (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' for short) which appeals were dismissed confirming the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.
| - 16 - | |
|---|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 | |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 | |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
enactment of the Mysore (Personal And Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the subject lands vested with the Government. However, the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the other villagers had been in actual possession and enjoyment of respective portions of subject land. It is contended that the plaintiffs and their ancestors have been in possession of the subject land for over five decades and
have been raising seasonal crops thereon. It is specifically contended that after vesting of the subject land with the Government, the Jodidar of the said village have lost their right, title, possession and interest over the subject land. That the plaintiffs have been regularly paying property taxes to the Government and revenue authorities had even effected mutation entries in the names of the plaintiffs as per the M.R.No.25/1986-87. That by virtue of said mutation entries plaintiffs have become owners of the subject land. It is also contended that said mutation
entries have not been questioned by the defendants for over 28 years. However, same came to be challenged by the defendants by filing regular appeal in R.A.No.145/2015-16 before the Assistant Commissioner.
That taking advantage of the said appeal defendants had approached and caused interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land giving rise to cause of action constraining the plaintiffs to file the above suits.
denied all the plaint averments and specifically contended that the land in Sy.No.147 was the Shanbhogh Service Inaam. That one Neelakantaiah the father of defendant No.1 was the Shanbhog of said Karahalli village. The said land was re-granted to the said to the Neelakantaiah as
per the orders of Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams abolition vide order No.I:A:5C:255:58. As such, he
| - 18 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
became owner in possession of the entire land in Sy.No.147. That all the revenue records continued in his name up to the year 1984-85. That the father of defendant No.1 Neelakantaiah died on 2.5.1964 and the defendant No.1 along with his brothers succeeded to the estate of Neelakantaiah including entire land in Sy.No.147 measuring 8 acres 12 guntas.
O.S.No.314/1963 originally against the said
Neelakantaiah, since died during the pendency, present defendant No.1 and his brothers namely K.N Gopalaiah and K.N. Manjunath were brought on record. In the said suit fathers of plaintiffs herein were arrayed as Defendant Nos.2 to 7. It is further contended that the said suit in O.S.No.314/1963 was dismissed holding Neelakanataiah
as the owner in possession of subject land. Against the
| - 19 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
said judgment and decree an appeal in R.A. No.53/1970 was filed before the District Judge. The said appeal was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.314/1963. Thus, by virtue of the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 and his brother had become absolute owners in possession of the suit property.
was granted in favour of Neelakantaiah. That all revenue records were standing in his name. Plaintiffs and other persons were watch and ward of the subject land. That
they are not having any right, title or interest of the subject land. Defendant Nos.2 to 7 in the said suit in O.S.No.314/1963 and their legal representatives and present plaintiffs in collusion with the revenue officials had illegally obtained mutation entries in their names in the
| - 20 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
revenue records in respect of subject land. That the said mutation entry is fraudulent and illegal and not binding on the defendants. That the challenge to the mutation entry in R.A.No.145/2015-16 by the defendant No.1 has been allowed holding that the subject land has been granted in favour of Neelakantaiah. Hence, sought for grant of counter claim directing the plaintiffs to remove themselves or evict them from the subject land. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit and grant of the Counter claims.
above regular appeals. The First Appellate Court,
considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal framed points for its consideration. On reappreciation of evidence, the first appellate court dismissed the appeals confirming the judgment decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same the plaintiffs are before this Court.
memorandum of appeal submitted that;
a) the trial court and the first appellate court have grossly erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs despite material evidence having been brought on record with regard to continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the subject lands for over seven decades.
b) the trial court and the first appellate court without adverting to the reasons assigned in the judgment passed in R.A.No.53/1970 misread the findings given in the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1965, passed in O.S.No.314/ 1963.
c) Elaborating these points he submits that findings given in O.S.No.314/1963 to the effect that the regrant of the subject land were made in favour of Neelakantaiah, have been reversed by the first appellate court in its judgment in R.A.No.53/1970.
Thus, he submits that there has been no re-grant of
land in favour of Neelakantaiah, as such the judgment and decree passed by the trial court confirmed by the first appellate court is patently, illegal and unsustainable.
d) As regards granting of counter claim in favour of defendants he submits that without defendants
proving their title over the subject lands and without seeking relief of declaration, the trial court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred in directing the plaintiffs to handover the vacant possession of the subject land to the defendants.
e) that the revenue records revealed the possession
of the plaintiffs over the subject land without any obstruction from anyone whomsoever and the trial court and the first appellate court failed to notice that when the land vested with the State Government
free from all encumbrances, previous Inamdar lost his right title and interest over the land unless occupancy rights are re-granted in favour of the earlier Inamdar.
f) The reasoning assigned by the trial court and the first appellate court, that the plaintiffs and their forefathers were in permissive possession of the subject land is contrary to the material evidence placed on record in that it is clear that the forefathers of the plaintiffs have been in occupation of the subject land as tenants under earlier Inamdar, who have lost title over the subject land with the advent of Inam Abolition Act. A suit based on long and uninterrupted possession of the subject land for more than 70 years was maintainable and the trial court and first appellate court erred in dismissing the same without adverting to the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR
VS. BUCHI REDDY, (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS reported in (2008), SCC 594.
g) Thus, he submits substantial question of law would arise for consideration of this court.
a) Taking through the contents of paragraph 10 and 12 of the judgment passed in O.S.NO.314/1963 and paragraph 8 of the judgment and order passed in R.A. No.53/1970 submits that there is a categoric
finding with regard to the land having been granted in favour of Shri Neelakantaiah. He submits the said finding and conclusion have attained finality. It is also his submission that the grandfathers/fathers of the plaintiffs have been parties to the said suit in
O.S.No.314/1963 wherein they had admitted the
ownership of Neelakantaiah over the subject land.
b) in response to the portion of the judgment and order in R.A.No.53/1970, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, he submits that admittedly, the grant has been made under the provisions of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act 1954, while the reference at paragraph 9 of the judgment in R.A. 53/1970 was with respect to proceedings under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1964 is only an alternate opinion expressed by the First Appellate Court.
c) He submits that endorsement dated 08.03.1988 had been issued by the office of the Tahsildar which was produced before the First Appellate Court wherein it was clarified that since the occupancy
NC: 2024:KHC:4909 RSA No. 1109 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 RSA No. 1111 of 2023 RSA No. 1113 of 2023 RSA No. 1114 of 2023 RSA No. 1118 of 2023 RSA No. 1119 of 2023 RSA No. 1120 of 2023
rights were granted under the provisions of Mysore (Personal And Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954, there was no requirement of grant of land under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1964.
d) It is his further submission that the plaintiffs in their plaints have taken inconsistent and mutually destructive stand, in that he submits that while the plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the subject land over seven decades as tenants under the original Jodidar, they have also contended that they have become absolute owners in respect of the subject land pursuant to the mutation register entries referred to in the plaints.
e) thus he submits that when the plaintiffs have sought relief of injunction claiming to be the owners of the land they cannot contend that they have been
in possession of the subject land as tenants under the original Jodidar and continued to be so even after vesting of the land.
f) He further submits that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court impugned in these appeals have already been implemented and satisfaction of the execution has been reported. He filed a memo along with order sheet in the execution case in Ex.P.No.52
of 2022 and connected matters wherein the Executing Court has noted the decree holder having filed a memo stating delivery warrant has been executed and has sought for dismissal of execution petition as the decree having been satisfied.
| - 29 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
g) thus he submits that there is no substantial question of law involved in the matter, warranting consideration at the hands of this court.
lands form part of a Jodi Village known as Karahalli Village, Bangarapet Taluk. That the ancestors of the plaintiffs were the tenants in occupation of their respective portions of land forming part of the subject land. That the
ancestors of the plaintiffs were carrying on agriculture activities. That after the enactment of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 and subsequently Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1964 lands, including subject land vested with the State. However, the ancestors, the plaintiffs and other villagers continued to be in actual physical possession and enjoyment of their respective portions forming part of land
| - 30 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
in Sy.No.147 of Karahali village. Each of the plaintiffs have claimed being in physical possession and enjoyment of certain portions of land forming part of 8 acres 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.147.
| - 31 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
was confirmed in the judgment and decree that was passed in a suit in O.S. No.314/1963 which was confirmed in R.A.NO.53/1970. That the claim of the plaintiffs having become owners of the subject land by virtue of mutation entries of the year 1986-87 is baseless as the said entry was collusive and illegal.
| - 32 - | |
|---|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 | |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 | |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
mutation of their names claiming that they have been in possession of portions of land forming part of land in Sy.No.147 for over 35 years and that they have been paying property tax to the Government. Upon which the revenue authorities have noted that the Khata in respect of the said land was standing in the name of Neelakantaiah, who is deceased and that his legal hairs have not been residing in village. Thus, based on this reasoning the names of aforesaid applicants have been mutated in respect of the aforesaid land.
| - 33 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
*Corrected vide Court Order dated:04.04.2024.
granted in favour of Neelakantaiah under the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 and also that the said Neelakantaiah was the absolute owner in exclusive possession of the subject land.
*Corrected vide Court order dated:04.04.2024.
| - 36 - | |
|---|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 | |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 | |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
joint family property and that by operation of law suit land ceased to be the joint family property of the plaintiffs and first defendant in the said suit.
*Corrected vide Court order dated:04.04.2024.
| - 37 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
Offices Abolition Act is of no avail to the plaintiffs in the present case.
| - 38 - |
|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
for the appellants that in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs the defendants cannot maintain relief of counter claim for possession, necessary at this juncture, to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GURBACHAN SINGH VS. BHAG SINGH reported in AIR 1996 SC 1087, wherein it has been held that in a suit for injunction, a counter claim for possession also could be entertained in view of operation of Order 8 Rule 6(A )(1) of CPC. In the case of JAG MOHAN CHAWLA AND
ANOTHER vs. DERA RADHA SWAMI SATSANG AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1996 SC 2222 it has been held that defendant can claim any right by way of counter claim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even though it is independent of the cause of action averred by the plaintiff and have the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a
| - 39 - | |
|---|---|
| NC: 2024:KHC:4909 | |
| RSA No. 1109 of 2023 | |
| C/W RSA No. 1110 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1111 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1113 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1114 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1118 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1119 of 2023 | |
| RSA No. 1120 of 2023 |
separate suit. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, making a counter claim in a suit for injunction and grant of the same cannot be found to be erroneous as sought to be contended by the appellants.
question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, appeals stand dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
RU
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs obtained title to the subject land through mutation entries in the absence of a specific grant order.
Whether the counter-claim for possession in the earlier suits was legally maintainable.
Whether the trials courts erred in finding defendants as absolute owners based on the earlier decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anathula Sudhakar Vs. Buchi ReddyReferred¶213
(2008) 5 SCC 594 · Who else cites this
Gurbachan Singh Vs. Bhag SinghApplied¶267
AIR 1996 SC 1087 · Who else cites this
Jag Mohan Chawla Vs. Dera Radha Swami SatsangApplied¶268
AIR 1996 SC 2222 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri P. Muniraju S/o Late Pillappa
Sri K.N. Srinivasaiah S/o Late Neelakantaiah
Sri K.R. Mahesh S/o Sri.K.S. Ramachandrappa
Sri Venkataramappa S/o Late Holuru Muniyamma
R. Gopalappa S/o Late Ramiah
Sri Agashappa S/o Late Kureshappa
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
