Dismissed

Sri.G.L.Ramakrishnappa v. Smt.Kadiramma

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024RSA/1278/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by defendants challenging a suit for declaration of title and injunction based on a registered sale deed. Courts below had concurrently found for the plaintiff; appellate court concurred, finding no substantial question of law, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri.G.L.Ramakrishnappa Vs Smt.Kadiramma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49588 RSA No. 1278 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1278 OF 2021 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.G.L.RAMAKRISHNAPPA, S/O T. LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT GERAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101.

¶8

Digitally signed by B VEENA KUMARI

¶9

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. NARASAMMA, D/O T. LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT GERAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK- 562 101.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. H. R. ANANTHA KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. KADIRAMMA W/O T.LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶15

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE T. LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49588 RSA No. 1278 of 2021

¶17

SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O LATE T. LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶18

RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 R/AT AMBEDKARNAGAR, CHAMARAJPET, CHICKBALLAPURA TOWN- 562 101.

¶19

SRI. M.N. RAVI KUMAR, S/O. LATE M. NARAYANA SWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NUGUTHAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.09.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.174/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHICKBALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2019 PASSED IN OS No. 07/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHICKBALLAPURA.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49588 RSA No. 1278 of 2021

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This regular second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2020 passed in R.A.No.174/2019, II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur and the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2019, passed in O.S.No.7/2010 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur.

¶27

For convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants were the defendant Nos.5 and 6, respondent No.3 is the plaintiff and the other respondents were the defendants.

¶28

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of the appeal are as follows:

¶29

The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing old Sy.No.51, new Sy.No.112, measuring 3 acres situated at Nuguthahalli Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk. Originally the suit property belonged to husband of defendant No.1 and he sold the same in favour of

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:49588 RSA No. 1278 of 2021

¶32

the plaintiff's father, Narayanswamy under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.06.1992. The plaintiff's father was in possession of the suit property till his death. On his demise, the suit property devolved upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff being the manager of the joint family, is cultivating the suit property on behalf of the joint family. With the bonafide mistake, the plaintiff's father did not obtain katha in his name with respect to the suit property based on the registered Sale Deed. The plaintiff filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur, seeking necessary direction to the Tahasildar for the transfer of katha and the same is pending for consideration. It is contended that, the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, a cause of action aroses for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

¶33

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 did not file the written statement. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died leaving behind defendant Nos.2 to 4 as her legal heirs. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 were subsequently impleaded.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49588 RSA No. 1278 of 2021

¶35

Defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint.

¶36

It is contended that, the defendant Nos.5 and 6 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, they have acquired the same through inheritance on the death of their father i.e., T.Lakshminarasimhaiah. Their father T.Lakshminarasimhaiah had acquired the property through a grant made by the Government. All the revenue records stood in the name of their father, who passed away on 11.02.2002. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not related to the father of the defendant Nos.5 and 6. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 trying to cut and remove standing trees contending that they have obtained a decree for permanent injunction in OS.No.406/2008. These defendants filed a suit in OS No.38/2011 against defendant Nos.1 to 4 for the declaration of title and cancellation of the decree passed in OS No.406/2008. Hence, on these grounds, defendant Nos.5 and 6 prays to dismiss the suit against them.

¶37

The trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. The plaintiff to establish his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked two

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49588 RSA No. 1278 of 2021

¶39

documents as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. On the other hand, the defendant No.5 was examined himself as DW1 and marked four documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. The trial Court, after recording their evidence, and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff's. It is declared that, the plaintiff and his family members are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, and granted a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

¶40

Defendant Nos.5 and 6 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in OS No.7/2010 preferred the appeal in RA No.174/2019 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura. The appellate Court, on reassessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in OS No.7/2010 vide judgment dated 24.09.2020. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 aggrieved by the impugned judgments filed this Regular Second Appeal.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:49588 RSA No. 1278 of 2021

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.5

¶44

and 6.

¶45

Learned counsel for defendant Nos.5 and 6 submits that, the father of defendant Nos.5 and 6 acquired the suit property through a grant made by the Government. His name was entered in the revenue records. After his demise, the suit scheduled property devolved upon defendant Nos.5 and 6. He submits that, the defendant Nos.5 and 6 are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property. He also submits that the said transaction is in violation of provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The said aspect was not considered by the Courts below and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He also submits that though the Sale Deed was executed in 1972 on the basis of the said registered Sale Deed name of the plaintiff's father was not entered in the revenue records. He also submits that Courts below have wrongly recorded the findings that defendant Nos.5 and 6 have not denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, on these grounds, he prays, to allow the appeal.

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:49588 RSA No. 1278 of 2021

¶47

Perused the records. Considered the submission

¶48

of the learned counsel for defendant Nos.5 and 6.

¶49

The plaintiff to prove his case, examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-inchief and to prove that the father of the plaintiff had purchased suit schedule property from T.Lakshminarasimhaiah under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.1992, the plaintiff has produced the original registered Sale Deed marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 is the RTC extract in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶50

From the perusal of recital of Sale Deed Ex.P1 it reveals that the husband of defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of father of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.1992 and it discloses that the vendor had delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff's father. Though, defendant Nos.5 and 6 have taken defense in the written statement and denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title based on a registered Sale Deed executed by husband of defendant No.1 in

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:49588 RSA No. 1278 of 2021

¶52

favour of the plaintiff's father. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 did not challenge the registered Sale Deed executed by defendant No.1's husband in favour of the plaintiff's father. The defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed the suit in OS No.38/2011 against defendant Nos.1 to 4 for relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed. The plaintiff is not a party to the said suit. The judgment and decree passed in OS No.38/2011 was not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff placed reliance on Ex.P1 held, that the plaintiff is an absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and the judgment and decree passed in OS No.38/2011 is not binding on the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was not a party to the said suit.

¶53

The learned counsel for defendant Nos.5 and 6 submits that though the Sale Deed was executed in the year 1972, the name of plaintiff's father was not entered in the revenue records based on the registered Sale Deed. As per Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 any person acquires any right by virtue of any registered instrument, it is the duty of the prescribed officer to report the acquisition of right by person to the revenue authorities and there is no provision for making an application to enter the

¶54

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:49588 RSA No. 1278 of 2021

¶55

name of the person who has acquired the property. Merely because the name of the plaintiff's father was not entered in the revenue record, it is not a ground to decline to grant a relief of declaration of title.

¶56

Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded the finding of facts against defendant Nos.5 and 6. I concur with the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58