Second appeal by defendants challenging concurrent decrees granting the plaintiff permanent injunction over 2 acres in Sy.No.143/3. Defendants produced no documents despite claiming 40 years' possession; their grant application was rejected and attained finality. Plaintiff's revenue records proved possession. No substantial question of law arose; appeal dismissed.
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:5486 RSA No. 1145 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
S/O LATE KARIAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
S/O LATE KARIAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
S/O LATE ERAIAH (ERAIAH) AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT DEVIHALLI VILLAGE HALEBEEDU HOBLI BELUR TALUK-573 118.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHESH
D/O LATE PARSHWANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NC: 2024:KHC:5486 RSA No. 1145 of 2019
DEVIHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA POST HALEBEEDU HOBLI BELUR TALUK HASSAN DIST. PIN-573 118.
…RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 AND ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.29/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BELUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.06.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.220/2013 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the defendants 1 to 4 aggrieved by
the Judgment and decree dated 01.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.220/2013 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur (trial Court) confirmed by the Judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed in R.A.No.29/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Belur (first appellate Court).
acres in Sy.No.143/3 situated at Devihalli Village, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk (schedule property). It is the case of the plaintiff that one Puttappa and his wife Puttathayamma were having three sons by name Parshwanathaiah, Ajith Kumar and Kubera and all of them have passed away. Plaintiff is the son of Parshwanathaiah. It is contended that upon the demise of Puttappa and Puttathayamma there was a partition of the family properties. That the suit schedule property was acquired by the plaintiff and as such claiming ownership over the schedule property.
claim of the plaintiff being owner of the schedule property also denied the partition of the properties as claimed. Defendants contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and the same is under their cultivation for over 40 years. It is also contended that they have made an application before the Assistant
Commissioner for grant of the schedule property which was rejected. That an appeal had been filed in appeal No.1213/2005 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which was also dismissed and against the order passed by the Tribunal, writ petitions were filed which were also dismissed. That taking advantage of these orders and since names of defendants not appearing in the revenue records, plaintiff has filed the suit dispossessing the defendant from suit schedule property. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
framed by the trial Court:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged Interference by the defendant.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
4. What order or decree?".
documents marked as Ex.P-1 to P-9. Defendant No.1 has
examined himself as DW-1 but has not produced any documents in support of their contentions.
"1.ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ/¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ°è PɼÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.06.2018 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ PÁ£ÀƤ£À ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©üÃvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court.
documentary evidence more particularly the revenue records produced by the plaintiff has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully proved ownership and possession of the subject property. It has
also taken note of the fact that defendant No.1 in his evidence has admitted the revenue documents standing in
NC: 2024:KHC:5486 RSA No. 1145 of 2019
the name of the plaintiff. The trial Court has also taken note of the fact though defendants claimed to be in possession of the schedule property over 40 years they have not produced any documentary evidence in that regard. It has also taken into consideration of the fact that an application filed by the defendants before the Assistant Commissioner seeking grant of subject land has resulted in its rejection which fact has also been admitted by the defendant No.1 in the cross examination. It has also taken into consideration that an appeal filed by the
defendants against the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal has also been rejected and writ petitions filed by the defendants against the said rejection has also been dismissed. Trial Court has thus come to the conclusion that though defendants claim to have been in possession of the land cultivating the same under the grandfather of the plaintiff namely Puttappa they have not been able to produce any piece of evidence in justification of their claim.
NC: 2024:KHC:5486 RSA No. 1145 of 2019
produced. Besides, application made by the defendants before the revenue authorities seeking grant of subject property has been declined and rejected which order has attained finality. Plaintiff on the other hand has produced records in the nature of RTC extracts, tax paid receipts, patta and receipt book evidencing his possession over the schedule property.
The trial Court and first appellate Court accepting the plea and evidence of the plaintiff have granted the relief negating the claim of the defendants. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the matter. Accordingly appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved possession of the suit property and entitlement to permanent injunction against interference by the defendants.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kariaiah
Sanna Eraiah @ Sanniraiah
Chandraiah
Javaraiah
Mahesh
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
