Dismissed

Sri Narayanaswamy v. v. Anjaneya Reddy

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024RSA/724/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka dismissed regular second appeals filed by defendants against the trial court's decree granting permanent injunction and dismissing a suit for cancellation of registration. The bench held that there was no error in the impugned judgments regarding property possession and boundaries.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeals were dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the courts below were confirmed.

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs v. Anjaneya Reddy — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 724 OF 2014 (INJ)

¶8

C/W

¶9

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 725 OF 2014

¶10

IN RSA.NO.724/2014

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE PEDDAPPAIAH @ PEDDA MUNISWAMY,

¶13

SMT. KANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY,

¶14

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE PEDDAPPAIAH @ PEDDA MUNISWAMY,

¶16

APPELLANTS ARE R/AT DASARA THIMMANAHALLI (V), RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M. V., ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶20

AND:

¶21

V. ANJANEYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O SRI.VENKATASWAMY, R/AT DASARA THIMMANAHALLI (V), RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. N. MURALI, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 17.01.2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR IN R.A.NO.90/2012, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINIVASPUR IN OS.NO.60/2007 AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO.60/2007 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

¶25

IN RSA.NO.725/2014 BETWEEN:

¶26

SMT. KANTHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, R/AT DASARA THIMMANAHALLI (V), RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122.

¶27

…APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M. V., ADVOCATE)

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶30

AND:

¶31

M. ANJANEYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,

¶32

V. ANJANEYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. VENKATASHAMI,

¶33

BOTH ARE R/AT DASARA THIMMANAHALLI (V), RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 122.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. N. MURALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED)

¶36

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 17.01.2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR IN R.A.NO.92/2012, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINIVASAPURA IN OS.NO.164/2007 AND DECREE THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.164/2007 AS PRAYED FOR.

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

These two regular second appeals are filed by the appellants challenging the common judgment and decree dated 17.01.2014 passed in R.A.Nos.90/2012 and 92/2012 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar, confirming the common judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.60/2007 and O.S.No.164/2007 dated 03.04.2012 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Srinivaspur.

¶42

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court in O.S.No.60/2007. The appellants are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff.

¶43

The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:

¶44

Defendant No.2 has filed a suit in O.S.No.164/2007 for the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed dated 11.07.1996 which was executed in favour of V. Anjaneya Reddy alleging that M. Anjaneya Reddy had no right to execute the registered sale deed. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.60/2007 for the relief of permanent injunction on the

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶46

basis of the registered sale deed dated 11.07.1996 which was executed by its previous owner i.e., M. Anjaneya Reddy in favour of the plaintiff.

¶47

It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit properties and the same was purchased by the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 11.07.1996. In pursuance of the said sale deed, katha was also changed in the name of the plaintiff and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Out of the said property, he sold a portion of the property in favour of one Sri Ram Reddy son of Late Erappa and the same is measuring East West 76 feet on the northern side and 58 feet on the southern side and eastern side in north south direction 10½ feet and western side 20 feet along with Danthi house. The property sold by the plaintiff is towards south of item No.1 and towards east of item No.2. In pursuance of the registered sale deed, Sri Ram Reddy is in possession of the property purchased by him under the registered sale deed.

¶48

It is the case of the plaintiff that, Sri Ram Reddy

¶49

made an attempt to obstruct the possession of the plaintiff over

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶51

the suit schedule properties. For which the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.98/2001. The said Sri Ram Reddy contested the suit, the trial Court on conclusion of trial, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2004. In the said suit, defendant No.1 has deposed as a witness on behalf of Sri Ram Reddy and defendants No.1 and 3 are own brothers and defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. It is contended that, the defendants are strangers to the suit properties and they are not in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendants made an attempt to obstruct the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. Hence cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit for permanent injunction.

¶52

The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession of the property bearing D.R.No.126, Site No.1, as the same was purchased by defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 04.08.1999 from its previous owner Munishami son of Hanumappa and katha of the property stands in the name of defendant No.2. It is contended that the vendor of the plaintiff

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶54

was not having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties and the plaintiff has not acquired any title by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 11.07.1996. It is contended that, on the basis of the concocted documents, the vendor of the plaintiff filed a suit against defendant No.2 in O.S.No.2/2000 in respect of the suit properties. Later on, the vendor of the plaintiff filed a memo and the said suit was dismissed as not pressed. It is contended that M. Anjaneya Reddy filed a petition before the E.O. of Srinivaspur in case No.VPC6/2002-03 against defendant No.2 and after contest, the petition was dismissed on 30.09.2004.

¶55

It is contended that the plaintiff colluding with the Gram Panchayath, created the documents and mentioned wrong boundaries and measurements. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit filed by V. Anjaneya Reddy in O.S.No.60/2007 and prayed to decree the suit filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.164/2007. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues.

¶56

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the

¶57

plaintiff i.e., V. Anjaneya Reddy was examined as PW-1 and

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶59

examined one witness as PW-2 and got marked 39 documents as Exs.P1 to P39. The plaintiff in O.S.No.164/2007 examined her Power of Attorney holder as DW-1 and examined one witness as DW-2 and got marked 38 documents as Exs.P1 to P38. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, in O.S.No.60/2007 answered issues No.1 to 3 in the affirmative and issue No.4 as per the final order and in O.S.No.164/2007, answered issues No.1 and 3 in negative and issue No.2 in affirmative and issue No.4 as per the final order. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.60/2007 with cost and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.164/2007 with cost and by way of permanent injunction restrained the defendants in O.S.No.60/2007 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff (V. Anjaneya Reddy) over the suit schedule properties.

¶60

The defendants in O.S.No.60/2007 and plaintiff in O.S.No.164/2007 aggrieved by the judgment, filed the appeals in R.A.Nos.90/2012 and 92/2012 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar. The First Appellate Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties framed the relevant points for consideration and on the

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶62

re-assessment of the oral and the documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 4 in affirmative and point Nos.2, 3 and 5 in negative and point No.6 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeals vide common judgment dated 17.01.2014 and confirmed the common judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.60/2007 and O.S.No.164/2007 dated 03.04.2012. The defendants in O.S.No.60/2007 preferred an appeal in RSA.No.724/2014 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.164/2007 preferred an appeal in RSA.No.725/2014.

¶63

Heard learned counsel for the defendants in O.S.No.60/2007.

¶64

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that there is a serious dispute with regard to the identity of the suit schedule properties and he also submits that though the name of V. Anjaneya Reddy was appearing in the panchayath records, subsequently the said entry was set aside by the Executive Officer. He further submits that the plaintiff V. Anjaneya Reddy is not in possession of the suit schedule properties. He also submits that the trial Court committed an

¶65

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶66

error in decreeing the suit of V. Anjaneya Reddy considering Ex.P1 and he also submits that the plaintiff had not acquired any right, title or interest under Ex.P1. The Courts below have not properly considered the documents produced by both the parties and committed an error in passing the impugned judgment.

¶67

He also submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for bare injunction, without seeking for the relief of declaration, is not maintainable. In order to support his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 . He also submits that the plaintiff in O.S.No.164/2007 had filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner. The trial Court committed an error in rejecting the said application by relying upon the Commissioner's report which was submitted in the earlier suit. Hence, the trial Court committed an error in placing a reliance on the Commissioner report submitted in O.S.No.131/2000. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals.

¶68

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶69

Perused the records and considered the submissions

¶70

of learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.164/2007 and defendants in O.S.No.60/2007.

¶71

It is not in dispute that V. Anjaneya Reddy had purchased two items of the properties by way of registered sale deed dated 11.07.1996 from Sri. M. Anjaneya Reddy. In order to establish that the plaintiff i.e, V. Anjaneya Reddy had purchased the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff has produced the registered sale deed marked as Ex.P1 and further the plaintiff had also executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sri Ram Reddy where portion of the property was sold by the plaintiff to Sri. Ram Reddy under Ex.P2.

¶72

Thereafter, the disputes arose between V. Anjaneya Reddy and Sri Ram Reddy. Sri Ram Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.131/2000 against the present plaintiff in O.S.No.60/2007. In the said suit, the trial Court appointed a Court Commissioner and parties have submitted a memo of instructions filed by both Sri Ram Reddy and the present plaintiff in O.S.No.60/2007. The Commissioner visited the spot and submitted the report to the Court in O.S.No.131/2000.

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶74

12 -

¶75

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.98/2001 against Sri Ram Reddy for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court against Sri Ram Reddy. Being aggrieved by the same, Sri Ram Reddy preferred an appeal in R.A.No.11/2005. The said appeal was allowed in which present plaintiff preferred a regular second appeal in RSA.No.2983/2007. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed in R.A.No.11/2005 and restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In the judgment passed in RSA.No.2983/2007, this Court has already recorded a finding that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the extent and boundaries in respect to the property sold by the plaintiff in O.S.No.60/2007 in favour of Sri Ram Reddy.

¶76

The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties have recorded a finding that the plaintiff in O.S.No.60/2007 is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and held that the plaintiff in O.S.No.164/2007 has failed to establish that she is entitled for cancellation of sale deed dated 11.07.1996 executed by M. Anjaneya Reddy in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.60/2007

¶77

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶78

and further recorded findings that the defendants have proved that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff in O.S.No.164/2007 is not entitled for the relief claimed in the plaint. It is further recorded that V. Anjaneya Reddy is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing the suit and V. Anjaneya Reddy has proved that the defendants are interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Hence the trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.164/2007 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.60/2007.

¶79

The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and further the plaintiff in O.S.No.164/2007 has raised the contention before the First Appellate Court in regard to dismissing IA.No.8 filed by the plaintiff in OS.No.164/2007 for appointment of the Court Commissioner. The First Appellate Court has recorded its finding that on the perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, discloses that the trial Court has applied its mind and has rightly rejected the application holding that the Court cannot fix boundary and it is for the Revenue Authorities to fix

¶80

14 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶82

the boundaries and has recorded that the trial Court was justified in rejecting IA.No.8 filed by the plaintiff in OS.No.164/2007.

¶83

Further, both the Courts below have placed its reliance on Ex.P13 i.e., the Commissioner's report filed in OS.No.131/2000. Though the plaintiff in OS.No.164/2007 has not examined the Court Commissioner, the said document is marked and the defendants in OS.No.60/2007 have not raised any objections at the time of marking of Ex.P13. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded the findings of facts against the defendants.

¶84

Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal.

¶85

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.

¶86

ORDER

¶87

i) The appeals are dismissed ;

¶88

ii) The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are confirmed;

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:34687 RSA No. 724 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 725 of 2014

¶90

15 -

¶91

iii) No order as to the costs;

¶92

In view of dismissal of the regular second appeals, pending I.As., if any do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

¶93

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶94

MCR,PNV

Sri Narayanaswamy v. v. Anjaneya Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narayanaswamy v. v. Anjaneya Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Bhojraj K.G. Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Madhusudhan M Vs the Commissioner

Smt Nagarathnamma Vs Joint Commissioner Bengaluru East

Sri M v Rama Rao Vs the Commissioner

H C Duggappa Gowda Vs State of Karnataka