Defendant appealed against concurrent decrees granting permanent injunction to plaintiff over granted land. The High Court found no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC and disposed of the appeal, clarifying the injunction would not bind revenue authorities deciding rival grant applications.
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:5934 RSA No. 53 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VISHWANATHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE KORAGA SHETTY, R/O. BAMBILA OF PALTHADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574210
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWARA R.P. AND
SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N
Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI. GOPALA SHETTY, S/O. THIMMAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. PALTHADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574210
…RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.08.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.50/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.91/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) PUTTUR D.K.
NC: 2024:KHC:5934 RSA No. 53 of 2024
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2009 passed in O.S.No.91/2002 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, which is confirmed by the judgment dated 07.08.2023 passed in R.A.No.50/2009 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur.
enjoyment of the plaint 'A' schedule property and he has effected improvement by planting arecanut, coconut trees and cashew plants. That the plaintiff filed an application in Form
No.50 in NCR. SR. No.290/1991-1992 before the Tahsildar, Puttur in respect of plaint 'A' Schedule property, after enquiry and measurement by the Darkasth Committee and upon its recommendation, the Tahsildar had granted 'A' schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, his name has been duly entered in the concerned revenue records.
NC: 2024:KHC:5934 RSA No. 53 of 2024
improvements effected by the parties. The Deputy Tahsildar had visited the property on 06.12.2000 and in the presence of plaintiff and defendant measured the land and filed a detailed report along with sketch and mahazar prepared at the spot, which document clearly evidence the fact that the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property. However, the Assistant Commissioner on technical grounds for not clubbing the applications of both plaintiff and defendant, remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. Against which, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in RAP No.93/01-02. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 30.07.2001, stayed the operation of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur, as such, the grant made in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property remained intact and the said revenue appeal was pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the defendant along with his henchmen attempted to trespass the schedule 'A' property, constraining the plaintiff to file the above suit.
contended that without enquiry, the grant was made in his favour by the Darkasth Committee. That the grant made in favour of his mother in NCR No.189/1991-92 is entirely different, distinct and the plaintiff has nothing to do with the grant of land made in favour of his mother - Duggamma. The land which is the subject matter of the defendant's mother - Duggamma claim on Darkasth is absolutely belonged to her. There is a confusion that the claim made by the plaintiff and the grant made in favour of the mother of the defendant, being one and the same. The claim of the plaintiff that he being in possession of schedule 'A' property is denied. It is also contended that the grant made in favour of the plaintiff has been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner directing the Tahsildar to hold fresh enquiry, as such, the plaintiff cannot take any advantage of the order passed by the Tahsildar and that the defendant has been in possession of the disputed property. The defendant who is working as a conductor has spent money for improvement of the plaint 'A' schedule property. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:5934 RSA No. 53 of 2024
2. Whether the alleged interference is true?
3. Whether the Defendant proves that the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act?
4. What order or decree?"
twenty documents as per Exs.P1 to P25 and the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and marked three documents as Exs.D1 to D3.
NC: 2024:KHC:5934 RSA No. 53 of 2024
2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court required interference?
3. To what order or decree?"
and on re-appreciation of evidence, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:5934 RSA No. 53 of 2024
the relief as sought for. He submits that the order passed by both the Courts, apart from being illegal, would also cause hardship and prejudice to the appellant/defendant pursuing his remedy before the authorities. He submits that there is a substantial question of law involved in the matter warranting interference. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that he filed an application before the First Appellate Court seeking to produce additional document, but no order has been passed on the said application.
NC: 2024:KHC:5934 RSA No. 53 of 2024
carried by the plaintiff before the Deputy Commissioner, who had stayed the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:5934 RSA No. 53 of 2024
appears to be that the judgment and decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff would come in the way of authorities considering his application for grant. Though factually the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concluded that the plaintiff to be in possession of the property, but the same do not warrant interference in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC and no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. However, it is made clear that the grant of decree of injunction would not come in the way of the authorities determining the application of the plaintiff and the defendant independently in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arose warranting interference with concurrent decrees of permanent injunction based on possession.
Whether the injunction decree would prejudice the defendant's pending revenue grant proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Vishwanatha Shetty
Sri Gopala Shetty
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
