This Regular Second Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. The High Court held that the appellant failed to formulate a substantial question of law under Section 100 of CPC regarding their claim of adverse possession.
The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
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:37639 RSA No. 972 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.T. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE B.THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT/ BANASAMUDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 421.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KHADRI S.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA
Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:37639 RSA No. 972 of 2020
MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 421.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANTHRAY LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR AGA)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN R.A.No.54/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.04.2019 PASSED IN OS.No.13/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALAVALLI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
judgment and decree dated 19.08.2019 passed in RA No.54 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Mandya dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2019 passed in OS No.13 of 2014 on the file of
NC: 2024:KHC:37639 RSA No. 972 of 2020
the Senor Civil Judge, Malavalli, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
the case of the plaintiff that, he has perfected the title of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as he is
cultivating the said land for more than 30 years. Hence, he filed OS No.13 of 1989 before the Trial Court, seeking relief of declaration and perpetual injunction.
in the name of Government and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.
marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. On the other hand, one of the Officer of the defendants examined as DW1 and got marked 21 documents as Exs.D1 to D21.
NC: 2024:KHC:37639 RSA No. 972 of 2020
preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section
100 of CPC.
Government.
the RTC extracts for the years from 1979 to 1985 stand in the name of father of the plaintiff and said
NC: 2024:KHC:37639 RSA No. 972 of 2020
aspect has been ignored by both the courts below. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
the prayer made by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession is concerned, it is well established principle in law that, it is the duty of the plaintiff, while seeking relief of adverse possession, to prove from which date he is in possession of the schedule property adverse to the interest of the defendant. In the absence of the said plea in the plaint would disentitle the relief sought for by the plaintiff in the suit. In that view of the matter, as the plaintiff has failed to establish the compliance of the ingredients to be fulfilled to seek claim of the schedule property by way of adverse possession as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 , I do not find material illegality or perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is liable to
NC: 2024:KHC:37639 RSA No. 972 of 2020
be dismissed. Since, the plaintiff/appellant has not made out a ground for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the Admission stage itself.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
SB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff has established a substantial question of law under Section 100 of CPC to challenge the dismissal of their suit for adverse possession.
Whether the appellant has fulfilled the requirements to claim title by adverse possession as per Supreme Court principles.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and othersExplained¶59
Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others (2019) 8 SCC 729 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. B.T. BASAVARAJU
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
E.S.INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
