M.S. Ramesha Vs Sannahydegowda

SANNAHYDEGOWDA SANNHYDEGOWDA @ CHIKKAGOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT MOODALAKOPPAL VILLAGE HALEBEEDU POST, MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK 571 431.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. V.N. SHANKAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 19.07.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.7/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., PANDAVAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED11.02.2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.828/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., PANDAVAPURA.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:43087 RSA No. 161 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This is defendant's second appeal.

¶25

The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that he, being the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of partition dated 15.08.1993, the revenue records mutated in his name and ever since, he was in possession of the same. The defendant, without having any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property interfered with the possession of the suit schedule property. However, the said aspect was denied by the defendant in his written statement.

¶26

The Trial Court, after framing relevant issues and after considering the evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties, has recorded a finding that

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43087 RSA No. 161 of 2019

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

DW1 - defendant himself categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the larger extent of suit property was granted in favour of Channegowda and he was in possession of the said property and subsequently, in the year 1974, said Channegowda sold the property to Ramegowda i.e., the brother of the plaintiff and ever since Ramegowda and his family members including the plaintiff were in possession of the suit schedule property. The said evidence of DW.1 corroborated with the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3.

¶30

Though the defendant took a contention that the boundaries of the suit schedule property consisted 7 acres 30 guntas and defendant's family owned 1 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.123/1 of Narahally Village and encroached 1 acre in suit schedule property in Sy.No.115 and applied for regularization before the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation and granted the same in favour of him, the plaintiff had produced the certified copy of the Assistant Commissioner's order - Ex.P15, which depicts

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43087 RSA No. 161 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

that the grant made in favour of the defendant was stayed

¶34

and directed to enter the name of the Government in respect of said property. The record of rights of the year 2009-2010 i.e., Ex.P18 also substantiates the said aspect. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

¶35

On appeal by the defendant, the First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the Assistant Commissioner cancelled the grant made in favour of the defendant as per Ex.P15 dated 02.09.2005 and the defendant, having not challenged the said order, the same has attained finality. Further, Ex.D5 - spot inspection report established the existence of the subject land in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has independently proved his possession and enjoyment, and the interference of the defendant with the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the Appellate Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order XXVI Rule 9

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:43087 RSA No. 161 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

of CPC for appointment of surveyor and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶40

In my view, both the Courts have correctly come to

¶41

the conclusion that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant without having any right, title and interest interfered with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction. As such, in my view, there is absolutely no question of law, muchless substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed .

¶42

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶43

HKV/PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

M.S. Ramesha v. Sannahydegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S. Ramesha v. Sannahydegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State by Honnali Police Station Vs Halasiddappa

Manjunatha G Vs Sri Muniraja

Smt Shantala Alias Nagalakshmi P C Vs Smt Rathnamma

Sri Lokesh @ Cable Lokesh Vs Sri Raghunathan Pillai Alias Raghu

Smt Kanthamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Vinod Kumar Gowda B. K. Vs the State of Karnataka