Sri Venkatareddy Vs Sri S v Krishnappa

8(a). SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/O ABBOLODU VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 015.

¶30

(BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE)

¶31

... APPELLANTS

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

AND:

¶35

SRI. S.V. KRISHNAPPA S/O VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105.

¶36

RAMANJINAPPA D. S/O GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O ABBOLODU VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 015.

¶37

SAVITHRAMMA W/O RAMAIAH, D/O GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O ABBOLODU VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 015.

¶38

VENKATAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, D/O GURAPPA, NO.191, CHAKAVELU, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 124.

¶39

RATHNAMMA D/O GURAPPA, CHAKAVELU, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 124.

¶40

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.N. SHIVAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 14.02.2024, NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶42

4 -

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23^RD JULY, 2015 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.37 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR (SITTING AT CHINTAMANI), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31^ST MAY, 2011 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.301 OF 1996 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC, CHINTAMANI.

¶45

IN RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶46

BETWEEN

¶47

SRI. VENKATAREDDY S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. R/O ABBOLODU VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 015.

¶48

2 GURAPPA SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LR.

¶49

2(a). SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O ABBOLODU VILLAGE, SIDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 015.

¶50

...APPELLANTS

¶51

(BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND

¶53

SRI. S.V. KRISHNAPPA S/O VENKATARAYAPP, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

2 SRI. S.V. GOPALAREDDY S/O VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶57

RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/O SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105.

¶58

RAMANJINAPPA D. S/O GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O ABBOLODU VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 015.

¶59

SAVITHRAMMA W/O RAMAIAH, D/O GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O ABBOLODU VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 015.

¶60

VENKATAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, D/O GURAPPA, NO.191, CHAKAVELU BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA -563 124.

¶61

RATHNAMMA D/O GURAPPA, CHAKAVELU, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 124. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.N. SHIVAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 AND R4 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R5 TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 14.02.2024)

¶62

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23^RD JULY, 2015 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.38 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR (SITTING AT CHINTAMANI), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31^ST MAY, 2011 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.296 OF 1996 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI.

¶65

THESE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶66

CAV JUDGMENT

¶67

Regular Second Appeal No.1667 of 2015 is filed by the defendants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23^rd July, 2015 passed in Regular Appeal No.37 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura (Sitting at Chintamani) (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31^st May, 2011 passed in Original Suit No.301 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chintamani (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed.

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Regular Second Appeal No.1668 of 2015 is filed by

¶71

the plaintiffs, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23^rd July, 2015 passed in Regular Appeal No.38 of 2011 on the file of the First Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31^st May, 2011 passed in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 on the file of the Trial Court, wherein the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed.

¶72

The brief facts for adjudication of these appeals are that:

¶73

3.1. In Original Suit No.296 of 1996, it is averred that the land bearing Survey No.78 of Settihalli Village, Siddlaghatta Taluk is a gomal land belonging to the Government. The Government had granted several lands to the landless persons. The suit land is the portion of the land in Survey No.78 of Settihalli Village, which has been unauthorisedly occupied by the plaintiffs and they are in cultivation of the same. It is also stated that the plaintiffs have filed an application to the Government, seeking regularisation of the land and the said application is pending consideration before the Competent Authority. It is further stated that, the

¶74

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

defendants without any right over the suit schedule property, have interfered with the possession and as such, plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.296 of 1996, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants.

¶77

3.2. After service of notice, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further contended that, defendant No.1-S.V. Krishnappa is in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of 5 acre 20 guntas (4 acres + 1 acre 5 guntas + 15 guntas (Kharab) in Survey No.78 of Settihalli Village. It is also stated in the written statement that, Mariyamma, mother of defendant No.1 was in possession of the aforesaid subject land. It is the case of the defendants that,

¶78

the land to an extent of 4 acres in Survey No.78 has been granted to defendant No.1 during the year-1970 and as such, the defendant No.1 is in possession of the entire extent of 5 acre 20 guntas of land in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the revenue records have been mutated in favour

¶79

of defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in respect of the subject land. It is further stated by

¶80

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

the defendants that the plaintiffs have made an attempt to forcibly evict the defendant No.1 from the suit schedule property and as such, defendant No.1-S.V. Krishnappa filed Original Suit No.301 of 1996, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Further, the defendant No.1 had also filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint by the plaintiffs, contending that the revenue authorities after due formalities issued grant certificate in favour of the defendant No.1 to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas and denied the fact that the Land Grant Committee had granted and regularised item No.1 of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff No.1. Accordingly, the defendant No.1S.V. Krishnappa in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 has sought for dismissal of Original Suit No.296 of 1996 and to decree the suit filed by him in Original Suit No.301 of 1996.

¶83

Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed issues and additional issues for its consideration in both the suits. In order to prove their case, common evidence was recorded by the Trial Court.

¶84

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

The plaintiff-S.V. Krishnappa in Original Suit No.301

¶87

of 1996 had examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 16 documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. On the other hand, defendants in Original Suit No.301 of 1996 have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and marked 3 documents as Exhibit D1 to D3. The Tahsildar of Siddlaghatta Taluk was examined as DW3 and marked 12 documents as Exhibits C1 to C12.

¶88

The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 31^st May, 2011 dismissed Original Suit No.296 of 1996 and decreed Original Suit No.301 of 1996 and held that the plaintiff in Original Suit No.301 of 1996 is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 and Original Suit No.301 of 1996, the appellants herein have preferred Regular Appeal Nos.37 of 2011 and 38 of 2011 before the First Appellate Court and same were resisted by the

¶89

respondents therein. The First Appellate Court, after reappreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree

¶90

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

dated 23^rd July, 2015, dismissed both the appeals and as such, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 31^st May, 2011 passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit Nos.296 of 1996 and 301 of 1996. Hence, the appellants herein have preferred these two appeals.

¶93

This Court, by order dated 20^th August, 2024,

¶94

admitted the appeals to consider the following substantial question of law:

¶95

"i. Whether the Courts below have failed to consider the sketch map enclosed, as contemplated under Rule 29 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969?

¶96

ii. Whether the Courts below have failed to consider Ex.P-10, the Grant Certificate, which does not disclose the boundary as the entire land is comprising of 90 acres?"

¶97

Heard Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing

¶98

for the appellants and Sri. K.N. Shivareddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 in RSA No.1667 of 2015 and respondents 1 and 2 in RSA No.1668 of 2015.

¶99

Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that, both the courts below have

¶100

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015

¶101

C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

committed an error in not considering the fact that the suit property is situate in between the two pieces of the land viz. 1 acre 5 guntas and 4 acres of land as claimed by the respondents. In this regard, he invited the attention of the Court to the Revenue Sketch produced at Exhibit-D2. Referring to the Grant Certificate dated 14^th September, 1994 produced at Exhibit-P1, in respect of 1 acre 5 guntas of land, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of the Court to Exhibit-C12 and deposition of DW3 and argued that the boundaries are not forthcoming in the document at ExhibitC12 and therefore, in the absence of boundaries mentioned in Exhibit-C12, the finding recorded by both the Courts below, granting relief of declaration in favour of respondents herein is incorrect and based on misconstruction of documents. Accordingly, he sought for interference by this Court.

¶104

By referring to the re-examination of DW3, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that, there is a discrepancy with regard to schedule to the land in question. He also referred to the cross examination of PW1 at page No.3 and submitted that the admission of the respondents herein about

¶105

13 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

the possession of the appellants herein has been ignored by the

¶109

Courts below and as such, the relief sought for by the respondents herein does not survive for consideration.

¶110

Learned counsel for appellants, by referring to the order dated 29^th December, 1997 (Exhibit-C1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur Sub-Division, argued that the rejection of the claim made by the appellants herein seeking regularisation of the land was remanded to the Competent Committee constituted for conducting enquiry and, against which the respondent herein filed appeal in R.A.No.22/97-98 and the said appeal came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, which is produced at (Exhibit-C2) and therefore, the competent Committee has to take decision in the matter in respect of the pending application filed by the appellants herein seeking regularisation of the land in question. Accordingly, learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that, both the Courts below have not considered contents in Exhibits 'C1' and 'C2' in a proper manner.

¶111

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

Nextly, by referring to Exhibit P1, it is contended

¶114

by the learned counsel for the appellants that the schedule to the land alleged to have been granted to the respondents herein to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas has been inserted fraudulently. He also has pointed out about the use of different pens in Exhibit-P1 and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. Learned counsel appearing for appellants placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NAGANNA (DEAD) BY LRS. DEVAMMA AND

¶115

OTHERS vs. SIDDARAMEGOWDA (SINCE DECEASED) BY

¶116

LRS AND OTHERS reported in (2025) 2 KCCR 1313 ; in the case of MUDDASANI VENKATA NARSAIAH (D) THR. LRS

¶117

vs. MUDDASANI SAROJANA reported in AIR 2016 SC 2250 ; and the judgment of this Court in the case of T.L. NAGENDRA

¶118

BABU vs. MANOHAR RAO PAWAR reported in ILR 2025 KAR

¶119

884 and submitted that, since the material on record would indicate that the respondents herein have failed to produce the relevant documents with proper description and, as there is a discrepancy in the identification of the property in question, both the Courts below have committed an error in granting the

¶120

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

relief of declaration. Accordingly, he sought for interference by this Court.

¶123

Per contra, Sri. K.N. Shivareddy, learned counsel

¶124

appearing for the respondent 1 in RSA No.1667 of 2015 and respondents 1 and 2 in RSA No.1668 of 2015 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. He further argued that the defendants have not placed any material on record to substantiate their right in respect of

¶125

the subject land by producing the grant record in their favour. The respondents herein have produced the order of Grant and the Revenue Sketch as per Exhibit D2 to substantiate the grant made in respect of the respondents. The respondents are in possession of the suit schedule property as per the finding recorded by the Trial Court and as the document at Exhibit C12 does not disclose the boundary of the suit schedule property, the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be confirmed in these appeals.

¶126

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the original records. Plaintiffs in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 (Appellants in

¶127

NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶128

16 -

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

RSA No.1668/2015) have filed suit seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Original Suit No.301 of 1996 is filed by one S.V. Krishnappa (defendant No.1 in OS No.296/1996), seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendants therein. The case of the plaintiff in Original Suit No.301 of 1996 is that the suit schedule property totally comprising 5 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.78 of Settihalli Village, was in possession of the plaintiff (S.V. Krishnappa) and portion of the land therein was granted in favour of his mother late Mariyamma and therefore, as per the revenue records, the plaintiff-S.V. Krishnappa is in possession of the suit schedule property to the entire extent of 5 acre 20 guntas. It is further stated in the plaint that the schedule lands are part of vast extent of land in Survey No.78 of Settihalli Village and the entire land carved out in Survey No.78 is gomal land. It is also stated that the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 are cultivating the land in question as unauthorised occupants and have made an application for regularisation. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 stated that the plaintiff No.1 was

¶131

17 -

¶132

NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

granted with item No.1 of the suit schedule properties on 05^th July, 1997, however, no grant certificate is produced before the Trial Court. On the other hand, defendants in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 claimed right to an extent of 5 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.78 of Settihalli Village by contending that the defendant No.1 is in possession of 1 acre 5 guntas, 4 acre and 15 guntas (Kharab land) as granted by the Government. It is further stated that, two items i.e., 4 acres and 15 guntas of Kharab land are in possession of the defendant No.1 in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 based on the order passed by the Government, granting 1 acre 5 guntas in favour of the mother of the defendant No.1 as Bagar-Hukkum. It is also stated that, 4 acres of land in Survey No.78 was granted during the year1970 by the State Government in favour of the defendant No.1S.V. Krishnappa. In order to establish the right over the property in question by the parties, I have perused the documents marked on either side before the Trial Court. Though the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 are claiming right over the property through possession as unauthorised occupants and have made an application to the competent authority, which came to be remanded for further

¶135

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

enquiry before the competent Committe and based on the same, the respondent-S.V. Krishnappa herein has filed Regular Appeal No.22/1997-98, which came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District (Exhibit-C2) and therefore the matter is pending consideration before the competent Committee to re-consider the case of the appellants herein for regularizing the land in question.

¶138

It is the contention of the respondents herein that

¶139

the land to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas was granted by the Government. In this regard, to ascertain the veracity of the grant made in favour of the respondents herein, I have carefully examined the evidence of DW3. The DW3-Tahsildar, Shiddlaghatta Taluk in the re-examination deposed as follows:

¶140

"£ÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ PÀqÀvÀzÀ°è EgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¥ÀvÀæzÀ £ÀPÀ°£À°è ªÁ¢UÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À ZÉPÀÄÌ §A¢ E®è. ¸ÀzÀj £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ¤¹12 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¤¹12 gÀ C¸À®Ä ¥ÀvÀæ ¤¦1 DVzÀÄÝ ¤¦1 gÀ°è ZÉPÀÄÌ §A¢ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ZÉPÀÄÌ §A¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §gÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼À°PÁÌUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¤¹3 gÀ°è wzÀÄÝ¥Àr CAzÀgÉ ¤¹3(J) AiÀiÁPÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼À°PÁÌUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¤r2 gÀ°è ¨ÁèPï £ÀA§gï 18 ªÀivÀÄÛ 19gÀ ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è C¼É¹gÀÄªÀ ¤±Á£É PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¹4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8 JgÀqÀÆ ªÀÄºÀdgïUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è DVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."

¶141

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶142

HC-KAR

¶143

In the backdrop of the aforementioned deposition of DW3-Tahsildar, Sidlaghatta, I have carefully examined Exhibit P1, wherein for a naked eye itself it is found that the schedule to land bearing Survey No.78 of Settihalli Village, Shidlaghatta Taluk to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas, the records have been tampered and the schedule to the subject land has been written by using a different ink. Subsequently, it is to be noted that the entire particulars in the Exhibit P1 is in ink pen and the schedule has been inserted thereafter through ball point pen. The said aspect of the matter was admitted by the DW3 in the evidence. Therefore, the claim made by PW1-S.V. Krishnappa, plaintiff in Original Suit No.301 of 1996 is contrary to records and the said aspect of the matter was not appreciated by both the Courts below in a manner known to law. In that view of the matter, as the claim made by the plaintiff-S.V. Krishnappa in Original Suit No.301 of 1996 is based on the tampered grant certificate and therefore, both the Courts below have committed an error in decreeing the Original Suit No.301 of 1996 filed by S.V. Krishnappa.

¶144

NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶145

20 -

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

Insofar as Original Suit No.296 of 1996 filed by the appellants herein is concerned, the plaintiffs stated that they are in unauthorised occupation of land in question and their application is pending consideration before the Committee constituted for granting land to the landless persons as per Exhibit D1. It is also to be noted that the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 have produced the copy of the Revenue Sketch (Exhibit D2). The DW3 produced the certified copy of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, remanding the matter to the aforesaid Committee for reconsideration of the application made by the defendants in Original Suit No.301 of 1996. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that, both the Courts below have granted relief of declaration in favour of S.V. Krishnappa (plaintiff in O.S.No.301/1996) based on the tampered grant certificate at Exhibit P1 and same is admitted by the DW3 in respect of discrepancy in boundaries/schedule to the land in question, I am of the view that, both the Courts below ought not to have granted relief of declaration in favour of the respondents herein based on such tampered documents. Therefore, I am of the view that, both the Courts below

¶148

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶149

HC-KAR

¶150

committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in Original Suit No.301 of 1996 and dismissing the suit filed by the appellants herein in Original Suit No.296 of 1996. Therefore, the substantial question of law referred to above favours the appellants herein, since, both the Courts below have committed a serious error in not noticing the tampering of the records at Exhibit P1 and misconstrued by ignoring the evidence of the DW3-Tahsildar, Sidlaghatta Taluk in a right perspective. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶151

O R D E R

¶152

i) Regular Second Appeal Nos.1667 of 2015 and 1668 of 2015 are allowed;

¶153

ii) Judgment and Decree dated 23^rd July, 2015 passed in Regular Appeal Nos.37 and 38 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura (Sitting at Chintamani) are hereby set-aside;

¶154

iii) Judgment and Decree dated 31^st May, 2011 passed in Original Suit Nos.296 of 1996 and 301 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chintamani are hereby setaside.

¶155

22 -

¶156

NC: 2025:KHC:37549 RSA NO.1667 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1668 OF 2015

¶157

HC-KAR

¶158

iv) Suit of the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.296 of 1996 is hereby decreed and suit of the plaintiff in Original Suit No.301 of 1996 is hereby dismissed.

¶159

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶160

ARK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26

Sri Venkatareddy v. Sri S v Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkatareddy v. Sri S v Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.K.M.Musthafa Vs Union of India

M/S Swabhimani Bharath Vs M/S Hotel Chetan International

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Parvathamma

Official Liquidator of Vs Mr. S. S. Dahiya

M C Somashekar Vs Official Liquidator

M/S Kei Rsos Maritime Ltd. Vs Mangalore Refinery and