Dismissed

Late Doddashetty v. Smt Malathi Srinivasan

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2024RSA/2325/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal challenging concurrent decrees for permanent injunction over granted agricultural land. Both courts found plaintiffs in continuous possession based on grant certificate, RTC and tax receipts from 1979-2000, holding column 12 RTC entries by defendants insufficient to prove possession. High Court found no perversity or substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Late Doddashetty Vs Smt Malathi Srinivasan — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2325 OF 2012 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LATE DODDASHETTY

¶9

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS

¶10

A) SMT. MADAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶11

1^ST WIFE OF LATE DODDASHETTY

¶12

B) SMT. PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶13

2^ND WIFE OF LATE DODDASHETTY

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

C) SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE DODDASHETTY

¶16

D) SRI D UMESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O LATE DODDASHETTY

¶17

E) SRI D ADISHESHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE DODDASHETTY

¶18

LR'S (A) TO (E) ARE ALL R/O PUTTAPPANADODDI

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶20

MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶21

F) SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE DODDASHETTY SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR-DAUGHTER SMT.SAVITHA, D/O NARASIMHA SHETTY MAJOR R/O RANGARAYARADODDI RAMANAGARA TOWN-571511 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶22

SRI MARISHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶23

SRI PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶24

APPELLANT 1, 2, 3 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE KULLASHETTY AND SMT MANCHAMMA AND 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT DABANAGUNDA VILLAGE, MALURU HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK-571523

¶25

…APPELLANTS

¶26

(BY SRI SRINIVAS B S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SMT. MALATHI SRINIVASAN W/O LATE SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶29

SRI S MUKUNDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶31

SMT. S PARIMALA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶32

SMT. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶33

SMT. S RADHIKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶34

SRI S SURESHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.2 TO 6 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE SRINIVASAN AND ALL ARE R/AT NO 75 KRISHNARAJENDRA MAIN ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE CITY

¶35

SMT USHA VARADARAJAN AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS W/O LATE S VARADARAJAN

¶36

S V RAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶37

S V SRIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶38

8 AND 9 ARE THE SONS OF LATE VARADARAJAN ALL ARE R/AT NO 34, I BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE CITY-560010

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI A S MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R5, R6, R8, R9;

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶42

R7 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED; V/O DT.27.06.19, R2, R3, R5 & R6 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R1; V/O DT.02.08.2023, APPEAL ABATES AS AGAINST R4)

¶43

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DECREE DTD 06.09.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.147/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶44

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

¶47

learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶48

This Court, on the earlier occasion having heard

¶49

the matter in part, directed the counsel for the appellants to produce the document of Ex.D1 and accordingly, he has produced the same.

¶50

The counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Both the Courts have

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶52

failed to consider the documents at Ex.D2 and D3 filed by the appellants which speak about the possession of the appellants over the suit schedule property and the cultivation carried out by them in the said land and Ex.D2 is dated 29.01.1991, much prior to the institution of the suit. Non-consideration of said important documents which proves the possession of the appellants by both the Courts resulted in miscarriage of justice. Both the Courts have not justified in passing the impugned orders when PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that the name of the appellants found in the RTC in respect of the suit schedule

¶53

property. The Courts below have not drawn proper inference. The counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not justified in decreeing the suit when the respondents/plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶54

The counsel for the appellants also in his arguments brought to notice of this Court to the

¶55

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶56

observation made by both the Courts. The counsel would vehemently contend that while answering Point No.1, the First Appellate Court mainly relied upon the documents of ‘P’ series and not considered the documents of ‘D’ series which have been produced before the Trial Court. Thus, the very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous.

¶57

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

¶58

the respondents in his arguments would vehemently contend that the Trial Court while considering the case of the respondents/plaintiffs taken note of the documents produced by them i.e., the grant certificate, pahanis, etc., which are evident to show that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of grant. Though the defendants have contend that they are in possession of the suit schedule property from last 60 years, no documents are placed before the Court to substantiate the same. The Trial Court also taken note that there is no change in ownership column as usual the

¶59

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶60

plaintiffs name are continued but the defendants have only made an attempt to make an entry in the revenue records and Tahsildar has ordered in favour of the plaintiffs to keep the documents in the plaintiffs’ name. Even though the defendants counsel argued that there is no base to enter the name in column 12 for the year 1995-96, the defendants have note taken any steps to challenge the order of the Tahsildar. The said fact is observed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court also taken note of he documents which have been produced by the plaintiffs wherein it shows that the names of the defendants are entered in column No.12 for the year 1992-93 and same is illegal. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Trial Court wherein an observation is made with regard to document of Ex.D1 and comes to the conclusion that an attempt is made to illegally interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. The Trial Court in paragraph 13 while answering Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs taken note of the material available on record particularly Ex.P18 to P33 which strengthen the

¶61

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶62

case of the plaintiffs and tax paid receipt also discloses that the plaintiffs are paying tax from 1979 to 2000 and patta book also marked as Ex.P33. The Trial Court also while answering Point No.2 taken note of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also the document at Ex.D2 to D4 and an observation is made that the defendants are illegally an attempt is made to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. The counsel for the respondents would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court also in detail discussed while re-appreciating the material available on record and comes to the conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶63

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶64

the respective parties and also considering the factual aspects of the case wherein the plaintiffs claim that they are the owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.22/2, dry measuring 1 acre 22 guntas in Dabanagudda village, Malur hobli, Channapatna taluk. It

¶65

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶66

is also their contention that katha stands in the name of plaintiff No.1 and they are in possession of the property and the defendants are not having any right in respect of the suit schedule property. When interference was made, legal notice was issued on 07.09.1991 warning the defendants to desist from attempting to interfere with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants were served with the notice calling upon them to stop interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs have been carrying an agricultural operations in the suit schedule property.

¶67

The defendants also appeared and filed the written statement contending that they were in possession of the suit schedule property and father of the defendants was innocent and uneducated person hence, he did not get the schedule property into his name, but he continued in possession of the suit schedule property throughout his lifetime and after his death, the defendants are in continuation of the possession of the suit schedule

¶68

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶69

property. The Trial Court having taken note of the contentions of the respective parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiffs examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P34. On the other hand, the defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D4.

¶70

The Trial Court having considered the material available on record and also considering the claim made by the plaintiffs that the land was granted in terms of Ex.P2 comes to the conclusion that RTC as well as the tax paid receipts show that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, it is the contention of the appellants/defendants that they are in possession of the suit schedule property but they only relied upon the documents at Ex.D1 to D4. Ex.D1 is the copy of legal notice. No doubt, there is a reference in the said document with regard to the illegal interference by

¶71

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶72

defendants. The Trial Court also taken note of the said fact in paragraph 12 and extracted the document of Ex.D1. In paragraph 13, the Trial Court taken note of the documents at Ex.P18 to P33 and held that the tax paid receipts clearly shows that the plaintiffs are paying the tax for the period from 1979 to 2000 and also taken note of patta book which is marked as Ex.P33. Having taken note of these materials on record, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property.

¶73

The First Appellate Court also while reappreciating the material available on record taken note of the contentions urged in the first appeal and also taken note of the documents which have been relied upon by the plaintiffs with regard to showing of possession. Ex.P2 is the grant order which shows the possession of the first plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and also taken note of Ex.P3, 4, 6 to 12 which also show the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property

¶74

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶75

and also taken note of Ex.P13 to P17 which also show the possession of the son of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also considered the document at Ex.D1 which mainly relied upon by the defendants with regard to their possession is concerned. In Ex.D1 there is a reference that the defendants have made an attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property illegally. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the documents at Ex.P18 to P32 and comes to the conclusion that the tax paid receipts confirmed the possession of the plaintiffs. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that other than the documents at Ex.D1 to D4, the defendants have not placed any other documents to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property but only an attempt was made to make the entry in column No.12 in the RTC. No doubt, in column No.12 entries are found but the same cannot be a document to prove the possession of the defendants. When such consideration is made by both the Courts and when

¶76

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶77

concurrent finding is given on the question of fact, this Court finds that both the Courts have not committed any error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. In the second appeal, unless any perversity is found in the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the question of invoking Section 100 of CPC does not arise.

¶78

The First Appellate Court is the final Court for fact finding. Only the second appellate Court can consider the substantial question of law. Even substantial question of law framed by the appellants in this appeal is also with regard to the possession is concerned. The counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that Ex.D2 and D3 establish the possession and cultivation that is an entry found in the RTC that too particularly in column No.12 and same cannot be a document evidencing the fact of possession but only an attempt was made to make an entry in column No.12 by the defendants and said fact has been observed by both the Courts. Thus, both the Courts have given finding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property from long period. Hence, I do

¶79

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:12397 RSA No. 2325 of 2012

¶80

not find any grounds to invoke Section 100 of CPC to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial question of law.

¶81

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶82

the following:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

The regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

Late Doddashetty v. Smt Malathi Srinivasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Late Doddashetty v. Smt Malathi Srinivasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar B Vs Sahara Prime City Ltd.

Yathish P S/O Puttabasavaiah Vs Guruswamy M S/O Late C. Madevaiah

Smt. Prameela Vs Smt. Rajamma

Venkateshappa Vs Smt Muniyamma

Sri Nanjundaiah @ Nanjappa Vs Smt Rajeshwari K S

Ramappa @ Ramakrishna Vs Dalavai Danappa