Sri. Sannaningappa Vs Sri. Mahadevappa

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1439 OF 2022 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SANNANINGAPPA S/O PUTTASWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT KAMAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK-571105 MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE (VC))

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O BOMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT KAMAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI-571105 HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SECRETARY VILLAGE PANCHAYATH OFFICE, HANAGODU-571105 HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2022

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

PASSED IN RA.NO.22/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.10.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.85/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNSUR.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶22

This appeal is preferred by the

¶23

appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur in R.A.No.22/2020 dated 17.08.2022 dismissing the appeal of the appellant/plaintiff and confirming the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Hunsur in O.S.No.85/2010 dated 19.10.2020.

¶24

Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants for the sake of brevity.

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

This Court does not find a need or necessity to

¶28

issue notice to the defendants/respondents, as this Court is not inclined to accept the appeal for any favourable order to the appellant, as the appeal deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶30

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff, which has fallen to the share of his father by way of an oral partition between his father and brothers and thereafter, subsequent to the death of his father, the khatha of the suit schedule property has been mutated into the name of the plaintiff, who is enjoying the property by paying taxes to the concerned authorities.

¶31

It is further case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 was permitted to reside in the suit schedule property.

¶32

Though defendant No.1 was allotted a house and open site under the Ashraya scheme at Kamagowdanahalli bore.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Defendant No.1 constructed a house and started residing there along with his family, and thus the father of defendant No.1 Sri.Bommanna S/o Halappa, gave a written statement to the president of Hanagodu Grama Panchayath contending that he is residing in the suit schedule property belonging to the plaintiff on a permissive possession given by the plaintiff which is used for residential purpose and not for any other purpose.

¶36

It is further contended that the plaintiff got

¶37

issued a legal notice on 05.01.2008 and on 29.03.2010 calling upon the defendants to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property. In view of the defendants

¶38

having not handed over the possession, the plaintiff pursuant to the issuance of legal notice, filed the suit against the defendants seeking possession and mandatory injunction and also a direction to the defendant No.2 - authority for collection of tax and thereafter issue copy of the assessment register and panchayath demand register with respect to suit property, costs of the suit etc. Upon

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the summons being served the defendant No.1 has appeared before the Court whereas defendant No.2 was placed ex-parte. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement.

¶43

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed

¶44

the following issues:

¶45

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the

¶46

suit schedule property is his ancestral property?

¶47

2. Whether plaintiff further proves that he has accord permission to the 1^st defendant to reside in the suit schedule property?

¶48

3. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient?

¶49

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the

¶50

relief of possession as sought?

¶51

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as against the defendant No.2, as claimed?

¶52

6. What order or decree?

¶53

In order to substantiate the issues and establish

¶54

the case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and

¶55

got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. The plaintiff also examined one additional witness in support of his case. Defendant examined himself as DW1 and got

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

marked the Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. Based on the evidence both oral and documentary, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, the trial Court examined the materials and the exhibits placed before the

¶59

Court and neither did it agree with the contentions put forth by the plaintiff with regard to the property being an ancestral property, nor documents were produced and also that the plaintiff did not prove the ownership of the suit schedule property and merely relied upon the statement made by the father of the defendant before the panchayath and the possession was handed over and accordingly, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶60

The plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit challenged the same in RA.No.22/2020 before the first appellate Court. Upon issuance of notice, the defendant appeared. The first appellate Court on careful perusal of the materials placed on record, including the evidence both oral and documentary, formulated the following points for consideration.

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

1. Whether the trial court is justified in dismissing the suit by negating that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule property is his ancestral property and the defendant No.1 was in permissive possession of the suit schedule property to reside and the plaintiff is not entitled for possession as sought for along with mandatory injunction against the defendant No.2?

¶65

2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court is arbitrary, baseless, capricious, devoid of merits, erroneous, perverse without being on the sound principal of law and warrants for the interference by the instant court?

¶66

3. To what order or decree?

¶67

Upon re-appreciation of the entire materials placed on record both oral and documentary and reappreciation of the same, the first appellate Court was not convinced with the arguments put forth by the plaintiff with regard to the property being ancestral and there being no documents produced to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner or his father was the owner of the property and there being any documents in favour

¶68

of the plaintiff and also the mutation entries in favour of the father of the plaintiff or the plaintiff. No such

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

documents having been produced before the trial Court or

¶72

the first appellate Court and that the plaintiff not having established his ownership and the fact that the defendants were residing in permissive possession admitting the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and did not find any error or illegality in the judgment rendered by the trial Court. So also, the first appellate Court did not find any good ground or cogent reason to accept the contention that the relief of mandatory injunction to be granted against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff and held that the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, for the plaintiff has not established or proved the issues that were framed by the trial Court so also before the first appellate Court on the points formulated by it.

¶73

The first appellate Court also found that with

¶74

regard to collection of the tax that no such direction can be issued to the revenue authorities for collection of the tax and accordingly dismissed the second prayer also

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

sought in the suit and confirmed the judgment and decree

¶79

rendered by the trial Court.

¶80

It is this judgment of the first appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff that is questioned in this second appeal.

¶81

Admittedly, there is no doubt with regard to the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff in the original suit proceedings wherein it was the claim of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property of father of the plaintiff. Plaintiff sought for the relief of possession of defendant No.1 and also consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondent No.2 to collect the tax and thereafter issue the assessment register extract in favour of the plaintiff.

¶82

It is the vehement contention of the learned

¶83

counsel for the plaintiff that the that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have misconstrued the entire

¶84

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

materials placed on record both oral and documentary and

¶87

have committed an error not appreciating the facts and the documents placed on record including the admission of the father of the defendant who had given a statement before the grama panchayath stating that he was living in permissive possession of the suit schedule property. Despite the plaintiff having produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P15, these documents have been conveniently ignored and a mechanical order has been passed dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶88

It is the further contention of the learned

¶89

counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have not taken into consideration the admission made by the defendant with regard to the father of the defendant No.1 residing in permissive possession from the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, it is contended that the entire judgment rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court is perverse, illegal, contrary to the materials placed

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

on record without appreciating the evidence both oral and

¶94

documentary, hence the same requires to be set aside.

¶95

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and on perusal of the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶96

1. Whether the plaintiff has made out a good or cogent reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellant Court, rendering a concurrent finding on fact.

¶97

2. Whether any point of law has been made out by the plaintiff to be framed in this case to delve further in the appeal.

¶98

On a careful perusal of the entire gamut of

¶99

materials placed before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and the arguments put forth by the plaintiff, it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was an ancestral property of the father of the

¶100

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

plaintiff and there after devolved on the plaintiff pursuant to the death of his father.

¶103

Mutation entries were made in the name of the plaintiff and in view of the fact that the house property, suit schedule property was taken by the father of defendant No.1, to reside on the permission granted, defendants started residing in a suit schedule property based on the permissive possession granted by the plaintiff. It is also seen that the plaintiff’s claim is that the defendant No.1 was also allotted a house under the Ashraya scheme at Kamagowdanahalli Bore. He has constructed a house and started residing along with his family. But after sometime he has locked up the door, vacated the suit property and started residing in the property of the plaintiff by way of permissive possession.

¶104

It is also pleaded and vehemently contented

¶105

that based on the statement given by the father of defendant No.1 to the gramapanchayath, defendants were

¶106

13 -

¶107

NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

living in permissive possession that itself is an admission

¶110

of fact and therefore the further antecedents need not be looked into by the Court once the father of the defendant No.1 has given a statement to the grama panchayath that

¶111

he was living in permissible possession. The suit ought to have been decreed and the defendants ought to have been ordered to be vacated from the suit schedule property.

¶112

It is further seen that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have considered all these aspects by framing relevant issues before the trial Court as well as points for consideration by the first appellate Court. The fact as to whether it is an ancestral property of the plaintiff

¶113

and whether defendant No.1 was in permissive possession was a subject matter before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The same has been elaborately dealt by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The

¶114

documents produced have been considered so also the evidence adduced by both the parties along with the witnesses. The trial Court as well as the first appellate

¶115

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not made

¶118

out any good ground or cogent reason with regard to production of any material to show that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not placed such materials, negated the issues so raised by the trial Court, which also came to be re-appreciated and re-analysed by the first appellate Court and negated by the first appellate Court. Under the circumstances, when the question of fact with regard to the possession of the property was adjudicated, so also the plaintiff's ownership of the suit schedule property by virtue of it being ancestral, have been considered deliberated and adjudicated by both the Courts, I do not find any good ground to frame substantial question of law in the present case.

¶119

In view of the provisions of Section 100 of the CPC, the scope for interference in a second appeal becomes very narrow and limited. It is for the plaintiff to have made out a case before the trial Court and the first

¶120

15 -

¶121

NC: 2026:KHC:13540 RSA No. 1439 of 2022

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

appellate Court, where he has not been successful. Both

¶124

the Courts have held in the negative. This Court is not sitting in the appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence on record. Even if this Court were to be of another opinion than that of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, it cannot impose its opinion, as a question of fact has already been decided. The same cannot be appreciated in the second appeal. This Court does not find any good ground or cogent reason to appreciate the contention of the plaintiff to frame a substantial question of law for consideration of this appeal once again.

¶125

In view of the above discussions, the trial

¶126

Court and the first appellate Court having deliberated on the factual aspect and the legal aspect, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason made out by the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, for requirement of framing a substantial question of law, or the existence of any substantial questions of law to be framed in the present case, to further delve into the matter or issue notice to the

¶127