Allowed

K S Udayakumar v. the Karnataka State

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024RSA/2094/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants in a suit for declaration of title appealed the First Appellate Court's decision. The High Court held that without cogent title documents or schedules of boundaries, a suit for declaration cannot succeed on oral evidence alone, following Hullappa. The appeal was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The Regular Second Appeal was allowed; the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2018 in R.A.No.21/2010 are set aside; the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010 in O.S.No.137/2008 are confirmed; the suit is

K S Udayakumar Vs the Karnataka State — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30477 RSA No. 2094 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2094 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K S UDAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O K S SOMASHEKARAIAH

¶10

BHRAMARAMBA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O K S UDAYAKUMAR

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF GARDEN HOUSE, KANCHAGHATTA, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 42, I FLOOR, MC & A HOUSE, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALOORU - 560 052 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT KANCHAGHATTA TIPTUR TQ, TUMAKURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. C N VENUGOPAL FOR C/R.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:30477 RSA No. 2094 of 2018

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 09.08.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.21/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TIPTUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 12.03.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.137/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., AT TIPTUR.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgement and decree dated 09.08.2018 passed in R.A No.21/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010 passed in O.S.137/2008 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Tiptur, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.

¶27

It is case of the plaintiff that, plaintiff is absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.Nos.40/1, 40/2, 40/3 and

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30477 RSA No. 2094 of 2018

¶29

40/4 of Kenchaghatta village, Tiptur Taluk, measuring 2 acre 24 guntas of land. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the Department of Industries and Commerce has assigned the schedule property to the plaintiff/Corporation. It is further stated in the plaint that, revenue records stands in the name of the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff has drilled borewell in the schedule property by investing huge amount. Thereafter, the defendants interfered with the suit schedule property, particularly, referred to at 'B' schedule property and as such, the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.137/2008 seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction.

¶30

On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, with regard to claim made by the plaintiff/Corporation, with reference to 'B' schedule property. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶31

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated the issues, for its consideration.

¶32

In order to establish their case, Plaintiff/Corporation has examined its officer as PW-1 and produced 9 documents as

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30477 RSA No. 2094 of 2018

¶34

Exs.P.1 to P.9. Defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1 and got marked 7 documents and same were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.7.

¶35

The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff/ Corporation has filed R.A.No.21/2010 before the First Appellate Court and the appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 09.08.2018, allowed the appeal and as such, set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010 passed in O.S.No.137/2008, and consequently, decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

¶36

This Court vide order dated 30.05.2024, has formulated the following substantial question of law:

¶37

"(1) Whether the First Appellate Court has committed an error in ignoring the admission on the part of P.W.1 in reversing the findings of the Trial Court and whether the same amounts to perversity?”

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:30477 RSA No. 2094 of 2018

¶40

Heard Sri.Vinay Keerthy M., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.C. N. Venugopal learned counsel for the respondent.

¶41

Sri.Vinay Keerthy M, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, invited the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the Trial Court and submitted that, the respondent-Corporation has not produced any relevant document to establish that the schedule of the property as given in the plaint and that apart, no title deeds have been produced by the Plaintiff/Corporation except Exs.P.1 to P.2Sanction Letter and Letter of Assignment. It is further contended that, though the Trial Court after appreciating the material on record, rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/Corporation, the First Appellate Court, on erroneous reappreciation of facts on record, reversed the finding recorded by the Trial Court and as such, sought for interference of this Court.

¶42

11 . Per contra, Sri.C. N. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, and

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:30477 RSA No. 2094 of 2018

¶44

argued that the plaintiff has drilled borewell in the plaint 'A' schedule property. Therefore, as the schedule 'B' property is the part of the 'A' schedule property the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is just and proper. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the findings recorded by the courts below, perusal of the original record would indicate that, the plaintiff has filed suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction. The grievance of the plaintiff is with regard to the Borewell situated in the 'B' schedule property, which is the part of 'A' schedule property. Perusal of the finding recorded by both the Courts below would indicate that, the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the certified copy of Sanction Letter, produced as per Ex.P.1 and plan, estimate and land details of schedule property. On careful examination of aforementioned documents, same would not specify the boundaries insofar as the land in question is concerned.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:30477 RSA No. 2094 of 2018

¶48

It is also forthcoming from the records that, the defendants in O.S.No.137/2008, are appellants herein, have filed O.S.No.156/2006 against the plaintiff in O.S.No.137/2008, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC At Tiptur and the said suit came to be decreed in favour of the appellants/defendants herein, whereby, the respondent herein has been restrained from interfering with schedule property belonging to the appellants herein. I have also carefully examined the plaint schedule property as stated in the plaint documents, particularly, Ex.D.5-Deed of Partition and Ex.D6 Certified Copy of Sketch produced by the defendants.

¶49

Having taken note of the factual aspects that, as the plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit seeking declaration in respect of the land in question, ought to have produced the relevant documents to establish the boundaries specified in the plaint. In this regard, following the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of Hullappa Vs. The State of Karnataka through Deputy Commissioner, Bidar and Others reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4958, wherein, this Court has held that, in a suit for declaration of title, unless the plaintiff furnish the document of title, with cogent schedule to

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30477 RSA No. 2094 of 2018

¶51

the land in question, Civil Court cannot grant declaration on the basis of record of rights, tax paid receipts or some communication or letters. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by this Court in the above case, I am of the view that, the Trial Court in O.S.No.137/2008, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. However, the First Appellate Court on erroneous assumption of facts and law interfered with the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. In this regard, taking into account the substantial question of law framed above, the plaintiff has failed to establish his right in respect of 'B' schedule property and any amount of the oral evidence, in a suit for declaration, in the absence of relevant title documents produced by the parties, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶52

In that view of the matter, I find that the substantial question of law framed above favour the defendants. In the result, I Pass the following Order:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed .

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:30477 RSA No. 2094 of 2018

¶57

ii. Judgment and decree dated 09.08.2018 passed in R.A.No.21/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tiptur is set aside.

¶58

iii. Judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010 passed in O.S.No.137/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC at Tiptur is hereby confirmed.

¶59

iv. Accordingly, suit is dismissed.

¶60

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶61

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

K S Udayakumar v. the Karnataka State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K S Udayakumar v. the Karnataka State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ankaiah Vs the Tahasildar

Sri Ugra Narasimhaiah Vs Sri Siddappa

Sri. Krishnappa Vs Smt. Narayanamma

Smt Vedavathi Vs Smt Bhagirathi

Satheesh Vs Latha

Smt. Gangamma Vs Sri Narayanamma