This second regular appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit for possession of coffee lands. The High Court held no substantial question of law arose as the appellant failed to prove her title or ownership over the property.
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:6232 RSA No. 1819 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1819 OF 2023 (POS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. S. S. PARVATHY, W/O. LATE SHIVAKUMAR, AGED 66 YEARS, R/AT T. SHETTIGERI VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, SOUTH KODAU-571 218.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAJU H. B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI. AJJAMADA NACHAPPA, (SINCE DECEASED)
NC: 2024:KHC:6232 RSA No. 1819 of 2023
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.06.2023 PASSED IN RA.NO.4/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.03.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.36/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PONNAMPET.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit along with
the application, the delay of 17 days is condoned. I.A.No.1/2023 is allowed.
dated 20.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.36/2010 on the file of
the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ponnampet which is confirmed
by the judgment and order dated 23.06.2023 passed in
NC: 2024:KHC:6232 RSA No. 1819 of 2023
R.A.No.4/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Virajpet.
and enjoyment of the paisary land of 14.70 acres bearing Sy.No.192/79 of T.Shettigeri Village. Due to her old age she had given the schedule property to the plaintiff. Ever since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants are the adjacent land owners. Without having right, title and interest over the schedule property the defendants tried to
trespass in to the property of the plaintiff constraining her to file a suit in O.S.No.161/1992 for a relief of permanent injunction which was granted in her favour. As against the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred a regular appeal in R.A.No.7/2002 which was dismissed. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in the meanwhile the defendants had illegally trespassed in to the schedule property and had encroached portion of same constraining her to file the present suit.
injunction restraining her from interfering with peaceful possession of the land in Sy.Nos.192/64, 192/65 and 192/21 of T.Shettigeri Village which was decreed. It is contended that the plaintiff on the other hand had encroached upon the large area of the Government paisary illegally and is now trying to encroach upon the property of the defendants. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
the following issues and recorded the evidence of the parties:
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that alleged encroachment of suit property by the alleged interference by the defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as sought in the plaint?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property valued and court fee paid is correct?
NC: 2024:KHC:6232 RSA No. 1819 of 2023
5. What order or decree?
trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in negative and issue No.4 in the affirmative. Consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.4/2017. Considering the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, the First Appellate Court
framed the following points for its consideration:
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants?
3. Whether the interference of this court is called for in the impugned Judgment and Decree?
4. What Order or decree?
appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:6232 RSA No. 1819 of 2023
trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:6232 RSA No. 1819 of 2023
plaintiff had examined Pw.1 who in her cross examination has stated that defendant had put up construction of the college over her property in the year 1992. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the trial Court and First Appellate Court have come to a conclusion that even according to the plaintiff defendants have allegedly encroached upon the property of the plaintiff and had put up construction even as in the year 1992. There is no explanation from the plaintiff as to the delay in she taking any action for violation or non-compliance of the decree
that she had obtained in O.S.No.161/1992. The present suit has been filed in the year 2010. Thus the trial Court and First Appellate Court have declined to accept the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have encroached upon the property of the plaintiff as claimed. That apart the trial Court and First Appellate Court have also taken note of the fact that plaintiff has not produced any document to show her title or ownership over the schedule property. She has also not produced any documents that her mother was in possession of the property except relying upon the
NC: 2024:KHC:6232 RSA No. 1819 of 2023
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.161/1992 which was confirmed in R.A.No.7/2002. Since the plaintiff had claimed the possession of the property based on her purported title and the same not having been proved the trial Court and First Appellate Court declined to grant the relief as sought for and consequently, dismissed the suit and appeal.
dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
NS CT:TSM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant proved her title to the suit schedule property despite lacking direct title documents?
Whether the trial court and first appellate court correctly dismissed the suit for possession due to failure of proof of title?
Smt. S. S. Parvathy
Sri. K. P. Thammaiah
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
