Defendants in a suit for permanent injunction over a granted site appealed concurrent decrees favouring the plaintiff-successors. The High Court found no substantial question of law: the settlement deed and grant relied on by defendants concerned site No.24, not the suit property. Appeal dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.603 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT WARD NO.1 HOSA ANGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571440.
…APPELLANTS
NC: 2024:KHC:31917 RSA No. 603 of 2024
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M.D. AND LEGAL AXIS.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
BOTH ARE R/AT WARD NO.1, HOSA ANGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TLAUK, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED IN R.A. NO.3/2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2022 PASSED IN O.S. NO.134/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
NC: 2024:KHC:31917 RSA No. 603 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023 passed in RA.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2022 passed in OS.No.134 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.
averred in the plaint are that, suit schedule property bearing site No.23 of Hosa Anagalli village, was granted in favour of father of the plaintiffs-Sri. Biligiri, S/o. Rangaiah, on 08.11.1972 and the revenue records stands in the name of the father of the plaintiffs. It is stated in the plaint that, father of the plaintiffs died on 22.04.2013 and on his demise, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the estate
of their deceased father and as such, the plaintiffs have stated that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the grievance of the plaintiffs that the defendants, without any, interest or right over the suit schedule property interfered with the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiffs have filed suit in OS No.134 of 2019 on the file of the Trial Court, seeking relief of permanent injunction.
NC: 2024:KHC:31917 RSA No. 603 of 2024
and further took up a contention that, the defendant No.1 has perfected her right over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.
aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred Regular Appeal in RA No.3 of 2023 on the file of First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating
NC: 2024:KHC:31917 RSA No. 603 of 2024
the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in OS No. 134 of 2019.
NC: 2024:KHC:31917 RSA No. 603 of 2024
the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and have perfected their title by way of adverse possession and there is no finding recorded by both the courts below in this regard and that apart, the Trial Court ought to have appointed a Court Commissioner to ascertain the possession of the suit schedule property and having not being do so, the Trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit and same was erroneously accepted by the First Appellate Court, and as such, the learned counsel for the appellants sought for interference of this court.
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, sought to justify the impugned order passed by the courts below and submitted that the plaintiffs had acquired the property as per the grant made in favour of their father-Biligiri, S/o Rangaiah, on 08.11.1972, which is the suit schedule property and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
averred in the written statement that the there was a Deed of Settlement dated 06.03.1981 in respect of the site bearing Sy.No. 24 which is admittedly not the suit schedule property. Perusal of the finding recorded by both the courts below, with regard to Ex.D1-Grant Certificate issued in favour of the Rangaiah, (grandfather of the plaintiffs), is in respect of the site No.24 and in that view
of the matter, as both the courts below have arrived at a conclusion that the defendants have not produced any documents that they have constructed a residential house
NC: 2024:KHC:31917 RSA No. 603 of 2024
in the suit schedule property and further as the father of the plaintiffs had acquired the suit schedule property as per the Grant Certificate produced at Ex.P1, I am of the view that, both the courts below have considered the factual aspects on record in detail and have passed the judgments accordingly. Therefore, I do not find material illegality or perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and as such, the Regular Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed . Since, the plaintiffs/appellants have not made out grounds for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, appeal is liable to be dismissed at the Admission stage itself, accordingly, appeal is dismissed .
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the defendants acquired title or adverse possession over site No.23 granted to plaintiffs' father, justifying interference with concurrent decrees.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Rajamma
Sri. Mahadeva
Sri. Dorebhagavan
Smt. Indira
Sri. Sundaramurthy
Sri. K. Venkataramu
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
