Dismissed

Sri. Ramanna v. Sri. Athaulla

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024RSA/60/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal regarding a suit for partition and injunction, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below, standing firmly on the presumption of validity of registered sale deeds and established possession in favor of the plaintiffs.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Courts below stands confirmed.

Sri. Ramanna Vs Sri. Athaulla — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:30990 RSA No. 60 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2017 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAMANNA, S/O LATE BALALJI SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶8

SRI. SRINIVASA @ SEENA, S/O LATE BALAJI SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. GOVINDA, S/O LATE BALALJI SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. VENKATESH, S/O LATE BALALJI SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT BALAJI COMPLEX, NEAR HULIYAMMA BAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, MYSURU – 560 026, TALUK AND DIST MYSORE

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI.R.B.ANNEPPANAVAR., ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30990 RSA No. 60 of 2017

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. ATHAULLA, S/O LATE ABDUL RASHEED SAB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.185, GOUSIA NAGAR, MAHADEVAPURA ROAD, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT MYSURU – 570 026.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.07.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.291/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.07.2013 PASSED IN OS NO.376/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the

¶25

Court below the defendants are before this Court in the Regular Second Appeal.

¶26

Parties herein are referred to as per their ranking

¶27

before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30990 RSA No. 60 of 2017

¶29

Suit for partition and injunction, restraining the

¶30

defendants from interfering with the suit vacant site bearing No.40 situated at Ward No.60 measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 68 feet bounded on

¶31

East by : Road,

¶32

West by : Property of the plaintiff,

¶33

North by : Private property and

¶34

South by : Private property

¶35

(hereinafter referred to as the suit property for the sake of convenience).

¶36

The plaintiff stated that he has purchased the suit property from one Nazeer Khan under registered sale deed dated 14.07.1997 and his vendor Nazeer Khan had purchased it from one Siddaiah under the registered sale deed dated 06.07.1965 to the extent of 5 guntas of land. After the purchase by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has put up construction of a house by taking necessary permission

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:30990 RSA No. 60 of 2017

¶39

from the authority. The defendants without having right, title or interest over the suit property has interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

¶40

On summons issued the defendants appeared and filed their written statement interalia contending that the property of the Siddaiah and the suit property are totally different and that Siddaiah was owner of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.224 and late Siddaiah had left behind 20 guntas of his land in favour of his wife Ningamma and accordingly the katha has been transferred in the name of Ningamma pertaining to 20 guntas. The defendants further submitted that on 22.08.2007 they have effected a registered partition and have got divided Sy.No.224 among themselves and the question of purchasing any portion of Sy.No.224 would not arise.

¶41

The trial Court, on basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues :

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:30990 RSA No. 60 of 2017

¶43

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

¶44

2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property?

¶45

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?

¶46

4. What order or decree?

¶47

In order to substantiate this claim the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and marked documents as EXs.P1 to P17. On the other hand the third defendant examined himself as DW.1 and marked documents as EXs.D1 to D23.

¶48

The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of the suit. By the judgment and decree the trial Court decreed the suit of

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:30990 RSA No. 60 of 2017

¶51

the plaintiff for permanent injunction and restrained the defendants from interfering over the suit property. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court while reappreciating and reconsidering the entire oral and documentary evidence concurred the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved, the defendants are before this Court in this second appeal.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants Sri R B Anneppanavar and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri T P Vivekananda and perused the judgment and decree of the Courts below.

¶53

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the identification of the suit property and its title deeds are in dispute and the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for injunction. Learned counsel submits that this Court be pleased to frame the substantial questions of law stated in the appeal memo be considered

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:30990 RSA No. 60 of 2017

¶55

though it arises out of the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the Courts below.

¶56

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifies the judgment and decree of the Courts below and submits that against the concurrent findings recorded, there arises no substantial question of law to be considered by this Court in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶57

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties. The suit is one for bare injunction. The plaintiff claims possession over the suit property under registered sale deed dated 14.07.1997 executed by his vendor Nazeer Khan. The Nazeer Khan, the vendor of the plaintiff has purchased 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.224

¶58

from Siddaiah, the father of the defendants. The defendants contend that Siddaiah to the extent of 20 guntas has transferred the same in the name of his wife

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:30990 RSA No. 60 of 2017

¶60

Ningamma and also contends that there was a partition effected as per EX.D3 on 22.08.2007 in respect of Sy.No.224 interse between the defendants. The plaintiff has produced EXs.P7 and P8 which are two sale deeds wherein the vendor Nazeer Khan purchased 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.224 from his owner Siddaiah, the father of defendants No.1 to 3 and the plaintiff purchased a vacant site No.40 situated at ward No.60 measuring 50' x 68'. The sale deeds executed in favour of Nazeer Khan and in favour of the plaintiff is not assailed by the defendants. On the other hand they have entered into a partition interse between the defendants themselves without there being any right over the suit property. The father of the defendants Siddaiah has sold 5 guntas in Sy.No.224 way back and the plaintiff has purchased the property to the extent of 50' x 68' from Nazeer Khan in the year 1997. The sale deeds executed have been stood unassailed/not challenged before any competent Court of law and there is a presumption of the validity of the registered document in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's possession and

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:30990 RSA No. 60 of 2017

¶62

enjoyment has been established over the suit schedule property as rightly held by the trail Court, confirmed by the first appellate Court, being the last fact finding court. The manner in which the Courts below have assessed the oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any interference and no substantial question of law arises for consideration under Section 100 CPC. Hence, this Court pass the following -

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶65

(ii) The judgment and decree of the Courts below

¶66

stands confirmed.

¶67

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶68

YKL

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri. Ramanna v. Sri. Athaulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ramanna v. Sri. Athaulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bcv Developers Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kempadevamma Vs Sri Shivarajappa

Puttathayamma Vs Poli Reddy

The Executive Engineer Vs M. Anand

Sri P Pavan Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Basavaraju Vs Doddamallegowda