Dismissed

Krishna Murthy v. a Raja Kumar

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024WP/13445/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant No.1 sought recall of the suit stage, reopening of evidence and summons to the Tahsildhar for revenue records after arguments had begun. The Trial Court rejected the applications as belated. This Court held no indulgence was justified since the defendants relied on a Tahsildhar report but never summoned documents earlier.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed, liberty reserved to raise the ground in appeal against any judgment passed in O.S. No.49/2019.

Krishna Murthy Vs a Raja Kumar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42755 WP No. 13445 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13445 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KRISHNA MURTHY S/O MALUR NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A SIDHARTHA NAGARA SIDLAGHATTA TOWN 562105 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHETHAN A C.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

A RAJA KUMAR

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

S/O LATE G. ANKAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A WARD NO.9, BYPASS ROAD, GURUPPANA LAYOUT SIDLAGHATTA TOWN 562105 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶14

MUNINARASIMHA S/O POOJAPPA

¶15

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A SIDLAGHATTA TOWN 562105 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶16

SURESH

¶17

S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A NAGALA MADDAMMA ROAD OP GOVT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL RESHME CIRCLE, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN 562105 CHIKKBALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:42755 WP No. 13445 of 2024

¶20

NARASIMHA S/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS R/AT SIDHARTH NAGARA SIDLAGATTA TOWN CHIKKABALLAPUR (D) -562105

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. UMESH R S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2024 IN OS.NO.49/2019 PASSED BY THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA DISMISSING THE IA NOS.18 AND 19 FILED UNDER SECTION 151,CPC,1908, IA NO. 20 UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 6 AND 7 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC, 1908 AND IA NO. 21 UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC, 1908 (ANNEXURE-A). AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The defendant No.1 in O.S No.49/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta has filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 27.03.2024, by which applications (I.A No.18, 19, 20 and 21) filed for recalling the stage of a suit, to reopen the evidence of the defendants

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42755 WP No. 13445 of 2024

¶29

for further evidence and to issue summons to the Tahsildhar, Sidlaghatta were rejected.

¶30

(i) A suit in O.S No.49/2019 was filed for

¶31

declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land in survey No.554/1 of Sidlaghatta. The plaintiff claimed title to the suit property, having purchased it in terms of a lawful conveyance. The defendants contested the suit and claimed that the suit property was a burial ground and that plaintiff had fabricated documents to lay claim to the said burial ground. Based on these contentions, the suit was set down for trial. After conclusion of the trial and after plaintiff had addressed arguments, the case was set down for the defendant to address arguments.

¶32

ii) At that stage, the defendants filed applications I.A Nos.18 to 21, to recall the stage of the suit, re-open the evidence of the defendants to lead further evidence, to issue summons to the Tahsildhar to produce documents. The said applications were based on the premise that the revenue officials had maintained IL and RR of Sy No.554 of Sidlaghatta, but they were unable to secure the same. They contended that these documents were

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42755 WP No. 13445 of 2024

¶34

relevant to consider whether the claim of plaintiff was genuine or not. Therefore, they contended that it was imminent to summon the said documents from the custody of Tahsildhar. These applications were contested by the plaintiffs on the ground that the applications were designed to protract the proceedings. It was also contended that, the defendants did not make an attempt to secure the documents through the course known to law, though they raised a contention in the written statement that the suit property was a burial ground. They contended that the defendants before making statement in the written statement must have ascertained the same from the revenue documents. It was therefore, contended that the applications filed at a belated stage was not maintainable.

¶35

(iii) The Trial Court after considering the above contentions, rejected the applications in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the applications were filed belatedly that too after the arguments of the plaintiff was heard. It was also held that the defendant No.1 did not approach the Tahsildhar to obtain the documents and that he did not mention how the documents were relevant. Being aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42755 WP No. 13445 of 2024

¶37

The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 contended that the defendant No.1 has taken a specific contention in the written statement that the suit property belonged to the government and was used a burial ground from time immemorial and that the plaintiff had forged and fabricated documents to lay claim to the suit property. He also contended that the defendant No.1 specifically averred that, neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor ever cultivated the land and were never in possession of the land as contended in the plaint, but the land was used as burial ground by the persons of Adi Karnataka community. He therefore, contended that the question whether the property claimed by the plaintiff was registered as burial ground in the records of the revenue authorities had to be verified. Therefore, he contends that this was crucial for deciding the issues in the suit.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant has raised specific contention of the suit property which was burial ground. Therefore, the defendants before making such a statement must have ascertained the said fact from revenue records. He contends that, if the defendants have not obtained any records in that

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42755 WP No. 13445 of 2024

¶40

regard, then the contention raised by them in written statement has to be treated as false. He contends that the defendant has specifically stated in the written statement that they had obtained a report of the Tahsildhar sent to the Assistant commissioner. He therefore, contends that the case pleaded by the defendants before the Trial Court is based on the said report and the defendants are therefore, bound to prove the said report in accordance with law. He contends that since the defendants did not take any steps to summon the documents at the earliest point of time, they cannot be permitted to do so at the final stage of the suit.

¶41

I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant No.1

¶42

A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants does indicate that they had claimed that the suit property was used as burial ground. In support of this contention, the defendants relied upon the report of the Tahsildhar to the Assistant Commissioner. The defendants have raised other contentions that the plaintiff had given non

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42755 WP No. 13445 of 2024

¶44

oblige to the suit property and that a building existed on the suit property which was constructed by the State government to perform funeral related activities. In that be so, the defendants were bound to establish the said fact. The defendants cannot now wake up after the case is set down for arguments to summon the documents from the revenue authorities. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in not showing any indulgence to summon the documents from the revenue authorities.

¶45

In that view of the matter, this writ petition does

¶46

not merit consideration and is dismissed

¶47

However, the defendant No.1 is entitled to raise this as a ground in the event of filing an appeal against any judgment that may be passed in the suit.

¶48

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶49

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Krishna Murthy v. a Raja Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Murthy v. a Raja Kumar

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

Sri Venkataswamy Reddy Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri. Jagannath v. Pai Vs Sri. Munishamappa

R. Krishnamurthy, Vs Veeramma

Smt.R.Thejavathi Vs the President

Sri Syed Moulana Vs Smt Sharfunnisa

M/S Bangalore Club Vs Mr Mathew K Marattukalam