Dismissed

Sri K.M. Appaiah v. Smt Gowramma

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024RSA/1309/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal for a permanent injunction, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The court held that the plaintiff admitted the defendant's possession via a panchayat record, precluding the necessary prima facie possession for injunction. Impugned judgments were confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees of courts below confirmed.

Sri K.M. Appaiah Vs Smt Gowramma — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41653 RSA No. 1309 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 2021 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI K.M. APPAIAH S/O LATE MADAIAH AGED AOBUT 62 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT DODDATTURU VILLAGE KUSHALNAGARA HOBLI SOMAWARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 234

¶9

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT GOWRAMMA W/O SANNASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT DODDATTURU VILLAGE KUSHALNAGARA HOBLI SOMAWARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 234

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO. 39/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SOMWARPETE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.08.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO. 118/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KUSHALNAGAR.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41653 RSA No. 1309 of 2021

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 passed in R.A.No.39/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge Somawarapete, and judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.118/2012 dated 14.08.2018 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagara.

¶20

For convenience, the parties are referred to according to their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is the plaintiff, and the respondent is the defendant.

¶21

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

¶22

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a relief of perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that one, K.M.Appaiah, is the owner of the land in Sy.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41653 RSA No. 1309 of 2021

¶24

No.5/1 measuring 50 cents, which was cultivated by him for the last 30 years prior to the grant. The plaintiff filed Form No.7, an application for a grant of unauthorizedly cultivated Government land. The Land Tribunal granted the land in question in favour of the plaintiff. The saguvali chit was issued by the Tahasildar in the name of the plaintiff on 16.02.2006. The plaintiff is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property; he is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction.

¶25

The defendant filed a written statement denying

¶26

the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the plaintiff is not in the possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:41653 RSA No. 1309 of 2021

¶29

The trial Court, based on the above-mentioned

¶30

pleadings, framed the relevant issues.

¶31

The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1 and examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to 8. The defendant was examined as DW.1 and examined 2 witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and marked 17 documents as Ex.D1 to 17. The trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit with cost vide judgment dated 14.08.2018.

¶32

The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.118/2012, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.39/2018 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Somawarapete. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 06.03.2020 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments passed by the courts below, has filed this regular second appeal.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41653 RSA No. 1309 of 2021

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶35

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, the Government granted said land in favour of the plaintiff, and a Saguvali chit was issued. The said documents produced by the plaintiff were not considered by the courts below and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal.

¶36

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶37

The plaintiff, in order to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, and reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief. During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that on 24.06.2007 there was a panchayath conducted in their village concerning the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of suit schedule property and after settlement,

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41653 RSA No. 1309 of 2021

¶39

the panchayath reduced into writing the decision and the same was confronted to PW.1 and said document is marked as Ex.D5. PW.1 admitted the contents of Ex.D5. From the perusal of Ex.D5, the plaintiff has admitted that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the suit is one for a permanent injunction. In a suit for permanent injunction, the court is required to see the possession and interference as of the date of the suit. As the plaintiff himself has admitted in Ex.D5 that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property, it is clear that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property as of the date of filing the suit. Hence, both the courts below have rightly passed 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.

¶40

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is dismissed.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:41653 RSA No. 1309 of 2021

¶45

Liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to file a comprehensive suit.

¶46

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

¶47

No order as to the costs.

¶48

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶49

sks

Sri K.M. Appaiah v. Smt Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K.M. Appaiah v. Smt Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Yashwanth D Vs Smt Divyashree C

Mahboob Khan Vs Smt Hayath Bi

Venkatesha Vs Hemalatha S

Shri. Niranjan Babu Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Sri. Dinesh Acharya Vs Sri. M. Hemachandra

Smt Saraswathamma Vs Smt Siddagangamma