Defendant appealed against decreed suit where plaintiff claimed possession via her father's 1984 sale deed, with title declaration pending against defendant's vendor. Courts below had decreed for plaintiff; no document disproved her possession. Second appeal dismissed at admission stage for want of substantial question of law.
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:35591 RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1458 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT CHOWDADENAHALLI, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESHA M.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA
Location: High Court of Karnataka
SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT CHOWDADENAHALLI, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
…RESPONDENT
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05TH SEPTEMBER, 2020 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.55 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07TH MARCH, 2014 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.167 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MALUR.
NC: 2024:KHC:35591 RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the
defendant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 05th September, 2020 passed in Regular Appeal No.55 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Malur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), confirming the judgment and decree dated 07th March, 2014 passed in Original Suit No.167 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Malur (for short, hereinafter referred to as Trial Court), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed.
NC: 2024:KHC:35591 RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
stated in the plaint that, father of the plaintiff had filed Original Suit No.257 of 2002 for declaration of title with consequential relief of permanent injunction against one C.V. Rajappa and
same was transferred to Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kolar and renumbered as Original Suit No.81 of 2006, which is pending consideration before the competent Court. Upon the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and her brother are pursuing the said suit. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendant-C.V. Rajappa in the said suit has sold the property in Khata No.3 assessment No.9 to the defendant in Original Suit No.167 of 2007 and boundaries are disputed. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant has interfered with suit schedule property, as the suit filed by the father of the plaintiff is pending consideration against the said C.V. Rajappa (vendor of the defendant) and as such, plaintiff filed Original Suit No.167 of 2007 before the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:35591 RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
appearing for the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC:35591 RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
father of the plaintiff has filed Original Suit No.257 of 2002, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against C.V. Rajappa (vendor of the defendant) and same was transferred to Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kolar and renumbered as Original Suit No.81 of 2006 and same is pending consideration before the competent Court. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court taking into consideration the evidence on record, particularly with regard to possession of
the suit schedule property lies with the plaintiff, has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree
NC: 2024:KHC:35591 RSA NO.1458 OF 2021
has been properly re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court. The defendant has not produced any acceptable document to disprove the possession of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits at the stage of admission itself, as the appellant/defendant has not made out a case for interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure for formulation of substantial question of law. Accordingly, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
ARK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal warranted interference under Section 100 CPC given the plaintiff's established possession and pending title suit against the defendant's vendor.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narayanappa s/o Muniswamy
Rathnamma w/o late Krishnareddy
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
