Dismissed

Smt Sumithramma v. Sri Y v Venkatarama

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024RSA/42/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sued for declaration and possession of 30 guntas in Sy.No.10/1 claiming it fell to her husband's share under a 1940 partition. Both courts below dismissed the suit, noting defendants' possession and an unchallenged Land Tribunal grant of occupancy rights to defendants' father. High Court found no substantial question of law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Sumithramma Vs Sri Y v Venkatarama — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2018 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT SUMITHRAMMA WIFE OF LATE V. GANGADHARAMURTHY, AGED 70 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY LRs.,

¶9

1(a) SMT. G.RAJALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, WIFE OF H.N.JAYASIMHA MURTHY, DAUGHTER OF LATE V.GANGADHARAMURTHY & LATE SMT.SUMITHRAMMA, RESIDING AT No.358, 4^TH CROSS, VIDYAMANYA NAGAR, ANDRAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

1(b) SMT.G.MANJULA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, WIFE OF B.S.GOVINDARAJU, DAUGHTER OF LATE V.GANGADHARAMURTHY, & LATE SMT.SUMITHRAMMA, R/AT No.9, 11^TH BLOCK, ADISHAKTHI ROAD, SHAKTHI NAGAR, MYSURU-570 029.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. M.KRISHNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI Y V VENKATARAMA SON OF LATE V. VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶18

RESIDING AT PWD QUARTERS, HULLAHALLI POST, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT, PIN:571314.

¶19

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA WIFE OF LATE V.Y.PURNACHANDRA, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1063/15, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU, PIN:570008.

¶20

SRI. J.PUTTASWAMY SON OF LATE JAVARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.17/1, E & F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU, PIN:570024.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH.R.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶23

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER 43 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:20.09.2017 PASSED IN R.A.No.98/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:10.04.2015 PASSED IN O.S.No.262/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMGC., MYSURU, ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The unsuccessful plaintiff, since deceased, represented by her daughters, who are legal

¶29

representatives are before this Court aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2015 passed in O.S. No.262/2007 on the file of II Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru (Trial Court) which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 20.09.2017 passed in R.A. No.98/2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge at Mysuru (First Appellate Court).

¶30

The above suit in O.S. No.262/2007 filed by plaintiff for relief of declaration and possession of the property bearing Sy. No.10/1 measuring 30 guntas situate at Yedahalli village, Rayanakere Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, contending inter alia that the said property was originally allotted to the share of husband of plaintiff by name Gangadhara Murthy in terms of partition deed dated 15.05.1940 and he was in possession of the said property till his demise on 01.07.2004. As the plaintiff could not

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶33

live on her own and her daughters were in their matrimonial home, she had requested defendants to support her by cultivating the suit schedule property on the basis of crop share. That on 05.04.2007 some stranger asked the plaintiff regarding her objections, if any, with regard to the ownership over the schedule property and on questioning the defendants did not give favourable response to the plaintiff and when plaintiff asked for possession of suit schedule property, defendants denied her title constraining her to file a suit for declaration and possession.

¶34

Defendants in their written statement though admitted the plaintiff to be wife of one Gangadhara Murthy, but denied the rest of the plaint averments. It is contended that Sy.No.10 originally measured 4 acres 35 guntas, of which 4 acres 5 guntas was sold by the husband of the plaintiff on two different occasions, under

¶35

two different deeds of sale in favour of the third parties, who are in possession and enjoyment of the same that the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶38

father of defendant No.1 by name Venkatachalaiah, who is the father-in-law of defendant No.2 was holding remaining 30 guntas of land in the said Sy.No.10 as a tenant. That on an application he was granted occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal, Mysuru, vide order No.KLRM/1940/1974-75 and he was in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the property during his life time and after his demise in the year 1979, his two sons i.e., defendant No.1 Venkataramu and husband of defendant No.2 by name Y.V. Poornachandra enjoyed the said property. After the confirmation of occupancy rights in respect of said 30 guntas of land Sy.No.10/1 was assigned to the said portion of land. Y.V.Poornachandra passed away in the year 2002 and thereafter along with defendant No.7, the name of defendant No.2 was also inserted in the revenue records. Thus, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶41

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration :

¶42

i. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property fell to her husband V.Gangadhara Murthy’s share through partition dated 15.05.1940 and that she succeed to the same after his death on 01.07.2004?

¶43

ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has been in possession and cultivation of the said property?

¶44

iii. Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference by the defendants?

¶45

iv. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff’s husband sold 4 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.10 of Yadahalli under two different sale deeds?

¶46

v. Whether the defendants prove that the father of 1^st defendant has held remaining 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.10 of Yedahalli as a tenant and occupancy of right was confirmed on him by the Land Tribunal, Mysuru?

¶47

vi. Whether the defendants prove that this suit without seeking the possession of the suit schedule property is not maintainable?

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶50

vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed?

¶51

viii. What order or decree?

¶52

Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and another

¶53

witness one Mahadevappa was examined as P.W.2 and exhibited 5 documents and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-5. Defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and exhibited 18 documents and marked as Exs.D-1 to D-18.

¶54

On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court answered issues No.1 to 3 and 7 in the negative and issues No.4 and 5 in the affirmative. Consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶55

Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred Regular Appeal in R.A. No.98/2016 before the First Appellate Court. Considering the grounds urged in the making of appeal, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration :

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶58

i. Whether the lower Court was justified in answering issue No.1 in negative and issue No.5 in affirmative?

¶59

ii. What order?

¶60

On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First

¶61

Appellate Court dismissed the appeal conferring the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court.

¶62

Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds urged in the Memorandum of appeal, submitted that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the plaintiff with regard to her possession and enjoyment of the property, after demise of her husband. It is his further contention that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have failed to appreciate that the said property had fallen to the share of the husband of plaintiff in terms of partition deed dated 15.04.1940 and the same was succeeded by the plaintiff upon the demise of her husband during the year 2004. He submits that non-appreciation of evidence by the Trial

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶65

Court and First Appellate Court gives rise to substantial questions of law requiring consideration at the hands of this Court.

¶66

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, drawing attention of this Court to the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court with regard to the contentions of the defendants or their father acquiring the property in terms of grant made by the Land Tribunal in the year 1982 submit that the said grant has not been challenged by the plaintiff. He also points out to the deposition of plaintiff, wherein she has admitted that between the year 1974 to 2007 neither the plaintiff nor her husband was in possession of the property. He submits that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have taken note of the undisputed fact and have arrived at a just and proper conclusion warranting no interference and dismissed with costs.

¶67

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

¶68

counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the records.

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶71

It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property once belonged to the husband of the plaintiff. Exs.D-1 and 2 produced by the defendants are the deeds of sale pertaining to sale made by the husband of plaintiff conveying 2 acres 5 guntas and 2 acres respectively. As regards 30 guntas of land was concerned, the same was granted in favour of Venkatachalaiah, the father of defendant No.1 and father-in-law of defendant No.2 respectively.

¶72

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have also taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiff has admitted to the fact of defendants being in possession of the property. The very averment made in the plaint by the plaintiff is that she had put the defendants in possession of the property. Thus, defendants having been in possession of the property is admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint itself.

¶73

As regards the grant made by the Tribunal in favour of Venkatachalaiah on 19.02.1982 is concerned, which is

¶74

11 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:4385 RSA No. 42 of 2018

¶76

produced at Ex.D-18, there appears to be no challenge to the same by the plaintiff or her husband during his life-

¶77

time. This aspect of the matter has not been brought on record by the plaintiff except stating that she had put the defendants in possession of the property.

¶78

In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the suit schedule property having been granted in favour of the father and father-in-law respectively of the defendants, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed no error or irregularity in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff – deceased appellant. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

¶79

In view of dismissal of appeal, pending I.As., if any, are dismissed accordingly.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

HNM

¶82

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36

Smt Sumithramma v. Sri Y v Venkatarama

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Sumithramma v. Sri Y v Venkatarama

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

Sri. Ubedulla Khan Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Gavirangaiah Vs Nanjamma

Sri K R Ramamurthy Vs Sri Viswanatha Iyer

Smt. H Sabiha Banu Vs Chandra Reddy

Sri S K Mancha Naika Vs Smt. Jayamma

Smt. Parvathamma Vs Yogappa