Dismissed

Sri. a R Shanthaveerappa v. Mahalakshmamma

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024RSA/625/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal challenging decrees granting permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff regarding government land. The Court rejected an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Upholding the lower courts, the Court held that revenue records, mutation entries, and subsequent administrative confirmations proved the plaintiff's title and possession, dismissing the appeal for

What did the court decide?

None. Appeal dismissed.

Sri. a R Shanthaveerappa Vs Mahalakshmamma — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.625 OF 2020 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI A.R. SHANTHAVEERAPPA S/O. LATE KEMPARANGAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s.

¶8

1(a) SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE A.R. SHANTHAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶9

1(b) SRI SAMPATH KUMAR A.S. W/O. LATE A.R. SHANTHAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT SRIRANGA NILAYA, 6^TH CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGARA,

¶11

GUBBI TALUK & TOWN

¶12

TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 216.

¶13

(AMENDED CARRIED OUT AS PER

¶14

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

¶15

COURT ORDER DATED 21/03/2024)

¶16

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O. SRI SHIVARAMAIAH, MAJOR,

¶17

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. LATE SHIVANNA MAJOR,

¶18

APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENT OF ADAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 216. ... APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE AND SRI P. DHANANJAYA, ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶22

AND:

¶23

MAHALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE RAMAIAH @ RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR’s.

¶24

SRI S.R. RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RA/T RAVATHADRIPURA KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK – 572 201 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶25

SRI S.R. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT SAKASANDRA VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK – 572 216, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶26

SRI LAKSHMANAPPA S/O. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT ANKASANDRA VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI,

¶27

GUBBI TALUK – 572 216, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶28

SRI S.R. JAYARAMA SINCE DEAD BY LR’s.

¶29

4(a) NETHRAVATHI W/O. LATE JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶30

4(b) THILAK S/O. LATE S.R. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶31

BOTH ARE R/AT SIDILU, BASAVANNA EXTENSION, BACK OF GOVERNKENT HOSPITAL, GUBBI, GUBBI TALUK – 572 216. (RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶32

... RESPONDENTS

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶35

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.32/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GUBBI.

¶36

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

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

This appeal by the defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2016 passed in O.S. No.32/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi (hereinafter 'the Trial Court'), which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2019 passed in R.A. No.25/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi (hereinafter 'the First Appellate Court').

¶39

The above suit is filed by the plaintiffMahalakshmamma (since deceased represented by her legal representatives) seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The suit schedule property is a land bearing Sy.No.114 measuring 01 acres 11 guntas situated at Adagondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶41

absolute owner in possession of the suit property, having acquired the same under a grant made in the year 1977-1978. That by virtue of the said grant, mutation of her name has been effected in the revenue records in M.R. No.18/1979-80 and all the revenue records were standing in her name. That the defendants having no right, title and interest over the suit property are attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and obstructing the plaintiff from carrying out agriculture activities, which constrained the plaintiff to file the suit.

¶42

In response to the summons, the defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. It is specifically contended that the land measuring 3 acres 11 guntas situated at Adagondanahalli, Mazure Ramaswamy Palya, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk is a Government old Gramathana land. That one Rangaswamy s/o Kengarangaiah of Rangaiahnapalya was in possession of the suit land for more than 30 years. That Rangaswamy and his three brothers, namely, Shantaveerappa, Shivaramaiah and Shivanna were enjoying entire extent of 03 acres 11 guntas as

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶45

bagarhukkum Saguvalidaars. Subsequently, the manager of the family Rangaswamaiah had made an application to the concerned Authority for grant of said land. The concerned Authority granted 02 acres of land under order dated 07.11.1977 in LND.UCSR.92/77-78, though he was in possession of 3 acres 11 guntas of land. After the death of Rangaswamaiah, his sons and three brothers have been enjoying the suit land and they have partitioned the same and are in enjoyment of the same. It is their specific case that subsequently, said Gramathana land has been given survey No.114. The Revenue Inspector and Taluk Surveyor, Kadaba Hobli visited the land in question, conducted mahazar and identified the possession and enjoyment of defendants over the said land. Thus, it is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶46

The trial Court based on the pleadings framed the

¶47

following issues for its consideration:

¶48

"1. Whether plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession over suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶51

2. Whether plaintiff proves alleged interference by the defendants?

¶52

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief as claimed in the suit?

¶53

4. What order or decree?"

¶54

The legal representative of the plaintiff, namely, S.R. Lakshminarayana examined himself as P.W.1 and 18

¶55

documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.18. On the other hand, Special Power of Attorney Holder of the defendants examined as D.W.1 and examined two witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and 22 documents were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.22.

¶56

The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence,

¶57

answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and decreed the suit as prayed for.

¶58

Being aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred

¶59

the appeal in R.A. No.25/2016 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court considering the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum framed the following points for consideration:

¶60

" 1. Whether the trial court has erred in holding that plaintiff has proved her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶63

2. Whether the judgment and decree requires interference by this court?

¶64

3. What order?"

¶65

On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First

¶66

Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal by the defendants/appellants.

¶67

Sri. Hanumantharayappa.K, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal would submit that the appellants have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property for over 30 years by virtue of grant made in their favour in the year 1977. He submits that the plaintiff has not produced any documents

¶68

to show her possession since the defendants and their ancestors were in possession of the suit land for over 30 years,

¶69

the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have dismissed the suit. That though plaintiff claimed title over the suit schedule property in terms of a grant, but has not produced any grant order. Thus, he submits that nonproduction of evidence and necessary title of the plaintiff has resulted in perversity in the judgment and decree passed by

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶72

the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court giving raise to substantial question of law to be considered at the hands of this Court.

¶73

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that along with the appeal he has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking production of additional evidence. The documents which are sought to be produced are:-

¶74

The copy of endorsement dated 29.01.2013

¶75

issued by the Office of the Tahsildar, Gubbi.

¶76

The copy of endorsement dated 19.05.2015 issued by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkuru Sub-Division, Tumkuru. 3. The copy of endorsement dated 22.03.2016 issued by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkuru Sub-Division, Tumkuru.

¶77

In the affidavit accompanying the said application, it

¶78

is stated that the said documents had been handed over by the appellant to his counsel representing him before the Trial Court, unfortunately same has not been produced due to oversight. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that production of these documents would reveal that plaintiff has

¶79

not been granted any land, as no such records are available. Therefore, he submits that an opportunity be granted to the

¶80

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶81

appellants to lead further evidence by producing aforesaid documents.

¶82

Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is imperative to dispose of this application for production of additional evidences. The application for production of additional documents is governed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC which reads as under:

¶83

"27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court:- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if -

¶84

(a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

¶85

(a.a) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or

¶86

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

¶87

10 -

¶88

NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶89

(2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to the produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission."

¶90

It is not the case appellant that he was not having these documents in hand, or there was refusal to admit the documents by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. But it is his case that the said documents were handed over to his counsel and he has not produced the same before the Court, the same cannot be a ground to allow the application. Notwithstanding the same clause-(b) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 provides an opportunity to consider the documents, if the same is required for just disposition of the matter. Viewed even from that angle, the said documents are also not of any use to the appellant.

¶91

Perusal of the said documents sought to be produced along with the application would reveal that the appellant seems to have made an application seeking copy of the Order in file LNDCR.266/78-79. In the first of the documents sought to be produced, the Tahsildar has issued an endorsement stating no such records are available. In the second of the documents similar endorsement is given by the Assistant

¶92

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶93

Commissioner. Upon the third attempt being made by the appellant a detailed reply has been issued as per third of the documents. In that, it is very clearly mentioned that out of 3 acres and 11 guntas of subject land, 2 acres of land was granted in favour of one Rangaswamaiah, 1 acre and 11 guntas was granted in favour of the Mahalakshamma (the plaintiff), as per the orders passed in LND.UCSR.92/77-78 dated 07.11.1977. Perusal of the said document further reveal that the applications filed by the appellants seeking records pertaining to file No.LNDCR266/78-79. It is clarified that the said number was given in a communication issued by the Tahsildar seeking exclusion of the said land from the purview of the Gramathana while entering in the records. That due to inadvertence the case number is mentioned as LNDCR266/7879 in the correspondences ensued between Office of the Tahildar and Office of the Assistant Commissioner instead of referring actual grant order and number. It is under these circumstances the endorsements state that there is no record available by number LNDCR266/78-79. Except that nothing is forthcoming in the records. However, as noted above even the said document No.3 confirm that the grant of land of 1 acre

¶94

12 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶96

and 11 guntas made in favour of the plaintiffs and 2 acres made in favour of the defendants-Rangaswamaiah. As such the production of said additional documents are of no avail to the appellant.

¶97

I.A.No.1/2024 is accordingly rejected.

¶98

Adverting to the merits of the case, the Trial Court

¶99

and the First Appellate Court have taken note of the fact that the plaintiff in support of her claim of she having been granted 1 acres 11 guntas of land has produced a saguvali chit as per Ex.P17. She has also produced the RTC extracts as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and also mutation entries as per Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 reflecting her name in the relevant columns as owner and in possession of the property. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have also taken into consideration that a challenge had been made by the defendants with regard to the entries made in the revenue records mutated in the names of plaintiffs in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in R.R.No.1/2006-07 as per Ex.P12. The Assistant

¶100

Commissioner has passed the orders on 03.10.2006 confirming the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule

¶101

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶102

property. The said order was assailed by the defendants before the Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal in R.A.No.33/2006-07. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the said appeal by Order dated 21.10.2011 confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, it is clear that the defendants had even assailed the mutation entries made in the name of the plaintiff before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and the said challenge has been negated. That being the fact it is not open for the appellants/defendants now to contend that there was no grant made at all in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶103

Further as regards to the reliance placed on by the defendants in respect of documents produced at Ex.D7 to Ex.D22 to contend that as per the mahazar drawn he was in possession of the property, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have noted that the said document pertained to the year 1985-86 to 1991. Whereas the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are of the year 2006 and 2011 which are subsequent to the document at Ex.D7 to Ex.D22.

¶104

14 -

¶105

NC: 2024:KHC:12174 RSA No. 625 of 2020

¶106

In view of the aforesaid fact situation of the matter, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the considered opinion of this Court have come to the just and proper conclusion based on the records. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

¶107

Sd/JUDGE

¶108

¶109

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri. a R Shanthaveerappa v. Mahalakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a R Shanthaveerappa v. Mahalakshmamma

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

M. Shankar Reddy Vs Manjunath Reddy

M.S.Shantha Vs Ravindra M.S.

Siddanayaka Vs Maribettegowda

Mr. Kumar Vs Mr. Raghavendra Kamath

Chandramma Vs H Manjappa

Sri. Nanjavadootha Swamiji Vs Sri S. Linganna