Dismissed

K H Eshwarappa v. Rathnamma

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024RSA/395/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The second appeal, filed by the appellant against a judgment allowing an appeal and setting aside the trial court's decree in a suit for permanent injunction, was dismissed. The court held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed without considering the substantial question of law or hearing the respondents because the First Appellate Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to enhance the rel

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage for failure to formulate a substantial question of law; the inter一是 interim injunction I.A. 1/2024 was disposed of.

K H Eshwarappa Vs Rathnamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39357 RSA No. 395 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K H ESHWARAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: EX SERVICE MAN R/A ANAGODU VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR G M, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE ONKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SANTHOSH, S/O LATE ONKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST.

¶15

VISHALA, D/O LATE ONKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.

¶16

PRASHANTH S/O LATE ONKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶17

ALL ARE RESIDING AT ANAGODU VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:39357 RSA No. 395 of 2024

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.27/2020 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.702/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023 in R.A. No.27/2020 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil

¶25

Judge and JMFC at Davangere, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020 in O.S No.702/2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Davangere decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

¶27

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit

¶28

schedule property was allotted to the father of the plaintiff-Hanumantappa by Anagodu Gram Panchayat and grant certificate was issued on 01.03.1999. After the

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39357 RSA No. 395 of 2024

¶30

demise of his father, plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and the defendants without any semblance of right over the property in question are interfering with the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S. No.702/2012 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.

¶31

After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement disputing the ownership of the suit schedule property in the written statement. It is the specific case of the defendants that

¶32

one Nanjundappa- president of Panchayat during 1991-92 has created certain documents and as the plaintiff is the relative of the said Nanjundappa, the schedule property has been granted in favour of the father of the plaintiff and accordingly, it is the specific contention raised in the written statement that neither the Panchayat nor the plaintiff has any right over the schedule property and as such, sought for dismissal of the plaint.

¶33

The Trial Court based on pleadings on record, formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:39357 RSA No. 395 of 2024

¶36

establish their case, the plaintiff has examined three witnesses as P.W-1 to P.W-3 and got marked 22 documents and same were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-22. The defendants have examined three witnesses as D.W-1 to D.W-3 and got marked 10 documents and same were

¶37

marked as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-10. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020 decreed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred R.A. No.27/2020 before the First Appellate Court and the

¶38

said appeal was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023, allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020 in O.S. No.702/2012. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

¶39

Sri Chandrashekhar G.M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in not considering the grant certificate issued by the Panchayat, granting

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:39357 RSA No. 395 of 2024

¶42

land in question in favour of the father of plaintiff. It is also the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, as the defendant admitted the boundaries of the schedule property and the boundaries of his property as different and the said admission made by the defendant itself is sufficient for granting relief of injunction and therefore, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was granted by the Anagodu Gram Panchayat in favour of the father of the plaintiff on 01.03.1999 and thereafter, the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. The defendants in the written statement took up a specific contention that the schedule property is neither belong to the Panchayat nor belong to the plaintiff and during the year 1991-92, one Nanjundappa-President of the Panchayat was relative of the plaintiff and therefore,

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39357 RSA No. 395 of 2024

¶45

both of them have created documents pertaining to the schedule property and as such, questioned the title of the plaintiff in the written statement itself. In the said aspect of the matter, as the defendants have questioned the title of the plaintiff in the written statement, in view of declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy

¶46

(dead) by Lrs. and Others¹ in which the suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable and the plaintiff ought to have converted the suit of the injunction into a

¶47

suit for declaration. In that view of the mater, the First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of the materials on record, and taking into consideration the averments made

¶48

in the written statement, rightly interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari

¶49

(deceased) by Lrs.² . In that view of the matter, as the

¶50

1 (2008) 4 SCC 594

¶51

2 (2001) 3 SCC 179

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:39357 RSA No. 395 of 2024

¶54

plaintiff has filed bare injunction suit against the defendants despite the title to the property has been questioned in the written statement and the same has been set-right by the First Appellate Court by exercising jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC, I do not find

¶55

any perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and the same is hereby confirmed. Since the appellant has not made out a case for formulation of the substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

¶56

8. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. 1/2024

¶57

for temporary injunction does not survive for consideration

¶58

and is accordingly, disposed of.

¶59

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶60

CHS

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

K H Eshwarappa v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K H Eshwarappa v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Rao Vs Mohammad Rafiq

Ahamad Bava Vs Smt Sarojini Padvetnaya

Sri Marappa Vs Smt Thimmahanumakka

Smt Shakeela Vs Khurshid Unnisa

Sannajunjaiah Vs Basavaraju

P Kannappa Vs M Chandan