Dismissed

Seenappa v. Shivappa

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024RSA/1485/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Regular Second Appeal challenging orders dismissing a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the High Court of Karnataka held that the trial and first appellate courts were justified in finding that the appellants suppressed material facts by not pleading the execution of a registered sale deed linking them to the property, thus lacking clean hands.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and their respective successors is dismissed.

Seenappa Vs Shivappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1485 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SEENAPPA

¶10

DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶11

1(A) PAPAMMA

¶12

AGED 68 YEARS, W/O LATE SEENAPPA

¶13

1(B) NARASIMHAPPA S/O LATE SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

1(C) MANJULA D/O LATE SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶16

1(D) SARASAMMA AGED 62 YEARS, D/O LATE SEENAPPA

¶17

1(E) NARESH BABU

¶18

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O LATE PRAKASH

¶19

GRAND SON OF LATE SEENAPPA

¶20

1(F) JYOTHI AGED 28 YEARS, D/O LATE PRAKASH

¶21

GRAND D/O LATE SEENAPPA

¶22

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶23

1(G) KRISHNA

¶24

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SEENAPPA,

¶25

1(H) NARAYANASWAMY AND BABU S/O LATE SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶26

ALL ARE R/AT CHOWDESHWARI OONI RAILWAY STATION ROAD NAKKUNDIPETE CHINTAMANI CITY.

¶27

RAMACHANDRA

¶28

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O PAPANNA

¶29

VENKATESHAPPA AGED 56 YEARS, S/O LATE PAPANNA

¶30

PETITIONERS No.2 & 3 ARE R/AT AGRAHARA, BEHIND PATALAMMA TEMPLE, CHINTAMANI CITY.

¶31

…APPELLANTS

¶32

(BY SRI. B R VISWANATH., ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

SHIVAPPA

¶35

DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶36

1(A) SAVITHRAMMA

¶37

AGED 53 YEARS, W/O LATE SHIVAPPA

¶38

1(B) BHARATHI D/O LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶39

1(C) PADMA AGED 38 YEARS, D/O LATE SHIVAPPA

¶40

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶41

1(D) MURTHY AGED 36 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVAPPA

¶42

1(E) SHOBHA AGED 34 YEARS, D/O LATE SHIVAPPA

¶43

MUNIRATHNAPPA AGED 53 YEARS, S/O LATE ANJAPPA

¶44

SUDARSHAN BABU AGED 51 YEARS, S/O LATE ANJAPPA

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED IN RA No.44/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2012 PASSED IN OS No.21/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC , CHINTAMANI.

¶47

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

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶49

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶50

This regular second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed in R.A.No.44/2012 by the learned Senior Civil

¶51

Judge and JMFC, Chinthamani and the judgment and

¶52

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶53

decree dated 03.04.2012 passed in O.S.No.21/2010 by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani.

¶54

For convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(h) are the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1, appellant No.2 and 3 are the plaintiff Nos.2

¶55

and 3. Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) are the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1; respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.2 and 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants.

¶56

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

¶57

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in actual possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.No.99/1 measuring 34 guntas, including two guntas of karab and Sy.No.100/1 measuring 13 guntas, including two guntas of karab, both situated at Nekkundi Village, Kasaba Village, Chintamani Taluk. It is

¶58

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶59

contended that one Nagappa, who was the father of plaintiff No.1 and grandfather of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, purchased the suit schedule properties from its clear lawful owner, Purohit Venkatarama Sastry, under a registered sale deed dated 08.10.1936 for a valuable consideration. After purchasing the same, Nagappa and his family members were in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties. They paid kandayam to the Government regularly. The defendants do not have any right, title or interest over the schedule properties, and surreptitiously got the katha in respect of the suit schedule properties by way of pavathi varasu by colluding with the revenue authorities. The use of illegal entries in the RTC, the defendants tried to interfere with the suit schedule properties and dispossess them from the suit schedule properties, but the defendants did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiffs. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶62

The defendants filed a written statement

¶63

claiming that Nagappa and his sons sold the suit schedule properties in favour of Gowramma, and the said Gowramma mortgaged the same in favour of Obaiah. In turn, the daughter of Gowramma, namely Parvathamma, mortgaged the property from Obaiah through a deed of redemption dated 18.01.1996. The defendants claimed that Nagappa also executed a registered rectification deed on 10.09.1971. It is contended that Parvathamma had a right, title or interest and lawful possession over the scheduled properties, and all the revenue records were in the name of Parvathamma. After her demise, the revenue entries mutated in the defendants' name and continued the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties they inherited from their mother, Parvathamma. It is contended that against the revenue entries made in favour of the defendants, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura, in R.A.No.16/2007-08. The said appeal was dismissed on 25.09.1999. The said Nagappa died on

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶66

10.09.1971. In view of the execution of the registered sale deed, the plaintiffs and others have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶67

The Trial Court, based of the above said pleadings, framed the issues.

¶68

The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1, two witnesses were examined as PW.2, and PW.3, and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1 and marked 17 documents as Exs.D1 to D17. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and after assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with a cost of Rs.3,000/- vide judgment dated 03.04.2012. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.21/2010, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.44/2012 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chinthamani.

¶69

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶71

The First Appellate Court, after hearing the

¶72

parties, has framed the points for consideration.

¶73

The First Appellate Court, on re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs.5,000/- and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, have filed this regular second appeal.

¶74

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

¶75

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. He submits that the defendants are not in possession of the suit schedule properties. He submits that neither of the courts below has not properly appreciated the material placed on record. He submits that the impugned judgments passed by the courts below are arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶76

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶77

Perused the records and considered the

¶78

submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

¶79

The plaintiffs to prove their case, plaintiff No.1

¶80

was examined as PW.1. He has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and marked the documents, i.e., Ex.P1 is the genealogical tree, Exs.P2 to 7 are the RTC extracts, Exs.P8 to P10 are the mutation extract, Ex.P11 is the record of right, Ex.P12 is the index of land, Ex.P13 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 08.10.1936, which discloses that Nagappa had purchased the property under Ex.P13. During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted his signature on Ex.P13 (Ex.D1, i.e., original registered sale deed), wherein PW.1, having signed on Ex.D1, cannot take a 'U' turn and denied the execution of Ex.D1. Further, the plaintiffs have not sought the relief of the cancellation of Ex.D1. Further, the plaintiffs have suppressed the execution of Ex.D1. The plaintiffs have not pleaded either in the plaint or in the examination-in-chief of PW.1. The plaintiffs have sought

¶81

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶82

the relief of declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands. The plaintiffs have suppressed the signature of plaintiff No.1 on Ex.D1.

¶83

In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination in chief and got marked documents, i.e., Ex.D1 is the original registered sale deed, Ex.D2 is the registered mortgage deed dated 30.04.1950, which discloses that Nagappa mortgaged the suit schedule properties in favour of Obaiah, Ex.D3 is the registered redemption deed dated 18.01.1996, which discloses that the suit schedule properties were redeemed, Ex.D4 is the rectification deed dated 10.09.1971, Ex.D5 is the order of Assistant commissioner, which discloses that the plaintiffs have challenged the entries made in the names of the defendants and the said appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, Exs.D6 to D14 are the RTC extracts and mutation extracts, Ex.D15 is the patta receipt

¶84

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶85

book, Ex.D16 is the mutation register extract, Ex.D17 is the RTC extract.

¶86

Admittedly, the defendants have purchased the properties under Ex.D1, and there was a mistake in the survey number in Ex.D1, and the rectification deed was executed as Ex.D4. The plaintiffs have not challenged the rectification deed executed as per Ex.D4. As Gowramma had mortgaged the suit schedule properties in favour of Obaiah, the trial Court, considering the entire evidence on record, was justified in dismissing the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The First Appellate Court, on reassessment of the oral and documentary evidence, was justified in recording its finding that the plaintiffs are not the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the question of interference by the defendants would not arise, and the appeal would be dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Both the courts below

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:42143 RSA No. 1485 of 2021

¶88

12 -

¶89

were justified in passing 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.

¶90

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶91

pass the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

The appeal is dismissed .

¶94

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶95

ssb

Seenappa v. Shivappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seenappa v. Shivappa

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

Smt Venkatamma Vs Smt Venkatamma

Sri. Dinesh. R Vs Smt. Lokambika

Sri Hemanth Kumar Vs Sri Ravi Kumar

Ravi Vs Rajamma

Sri K Ranganatha Vs Sri K C Ramesh

Smt. Lalithamma Vs Smt. Suvarna