V Krishnamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2011

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

V Krishnamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2011

Bench: Manjula Chellur

R.F.A.No.555/as

IN THE HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA.:;@§R.'§:

DATED THIS THE 15?" DAY OF' JUNE, 2>.§:f--1 1      

§?é§§E£*§'§~    

TI-IE H()N'BLE MRS.JUS'I'ICE   _

AND    A
THE I-ION'BLE Mg_.JUsTI:i§:_:: £1;31LLAPP.a*§

  

BETWEEN:

1.

Son 0f__1g;te"'~$fi."kZ :§\Y:.V :_sh_w--a112__1_';ha3§1, Si1'1C€ :._d€:1d ré'j;u"'ei;§ér1t€:d by' ~ a. = é _ ' 1:», K A:

' ;{9;} is Wifé and A '($33) :3' respectivszly of 'Kate Sri.";?}iK1'ishnarnurthy.

Both ézfis residing at V '3\fo.32V6, 15* B Cross, V' '- '_ VEia4If«;ar1anagar, '* Ba;nga1ere * 560 094.

(By Sri.Udaya H0113, Srﬂounsel & R.F.A.NO.565/O8 V.Sathyamm'thy, Son of late S1:'i.V .N.Vishwar1athan, R/at.N0.'7O, Infantry Road;

Bangalore ~ 560 001.

Mr*.N,Rajanna, Ad_\i?So§ for M/s.HQI1a AND:

1.

The State of Karnataka By its Secretary 1:0 t}:1e~.__ Government, "

Revenue Department, M.S.Bui1ding, V I Bangalore - 1 The Special D'e.piitjz_ Cezi':;ﬁis$}.,Qn.e1z-- V Bangalefe I3,:s::*::;:V:, 3 " ' 3' D.C.(§Qmpe1_1fnd, % Bangalore' ~ V5'€C»'=.OG2.' ' ' The mea Develepfnent E%--:)a1*{i {KIADB}, Kaaﬁurba Road, " , Ban;;§a10reva.5 560 09-2;

L' {1?§'efenv:i_an{s.V:/Vfieepondents " ._ {Lo 3*are_ 1'ep1'*esented ny"the.Diaf:rict Government Pleader) M S . Company, A Cenfypany registered under .. f .. C'e--:npanies Act;

' Fend Garden, e _ "Represented by Big " an .._..:I'saianaging Bireeter, mﬁespendents R.F.A.N0.565/08 [By Sriﬁamtieep Patﬁ, Sp}. Gevi. Adv. for R4 & 2) (83? Sri.B.\?ISe.barad, Adv" fer R43} {By Sri.Jaya12:iti:a1 Rae, K0323', S:'.Ce1mse1 for M/'s.Ki:1g <3: Petridge & M/e.Crest Lew Partners, A _ __ V. _._ Adxzsq for Rail} $*ee$$ee;m~_ This R.F.A. :3 filed under sec;_9e _o'f '%.:h§,» judgement and decree dated 84.'2C'i)?,eC}O8,j '.."_eA O.S.N0.3859/2004 on the file 0;i7.._?£ii*3e XXVI1' A:<:i{if;'~.:vC1ty' Cixrii' Judge, Bangalore, dismissing 'the for 'cieelaxjeition and permanent injunction.

This R.F.A.V 'eoming on for pronouncemenp. ef this V HBILLAPPA, J., delivered the f(>1i1§)V-'é?T1:1";"t_g:- "' ' 'V V' This ' apfjeel piaintiffs is directed against the V.e_cAiec1';ee;"----ﬁa;ted 8.2.2008, passed by the XXVH f%3$2;;;f1ga1ere, in O.S.N0.3859/2004, impugitzeci judgment and deereee the Trial 'Ce_uri 122$ eiiemissed the suit ef the geiaintiffs. E R.F'.A.N0.585/08

3. Aggrieved by that, the appellants~pia§n.fiff§__'_ filed this appeai,

4. The parties will be referfed ~ '1*e{f'e1":e;v?iee":'31*:e,:O their rank in the original suit €).:?%.»_1'§£}.38§'E5'E3/V:

5. In brief, plaintiffs Sri.V.Krishnamurthy and H filed suit 5 . - ..;w"

in O.S.Ne.3859/23004:.'for are the owners of the suit sehe}iu1_e" direction to enter their names in:' the"- .reven14f,ie ree'orcis éVs Khathedars and for dee1arai:i0n:"*t_hat; "and 4 have no right, title or interest in the 's1,1.itv.se:nedf._1Ie.}§r0perty to create lease in favour vcfvthe 'defenC1aﬂt.__and the 1ease~deed executed in favour e'f._t1;1e'«feu1ffii.. defendant is a nullity in so far as the suit schednie_ Vpf0f5erty:'i:§" concerned and for permanent injunction feetraeining i§heveief'endants from interfering with the peaceful "":}§eeVs§e,Ssion and enjeymen: of the suit seheduie property by R.FrA.N0.565/08

8. The ease of the plaintiffs was that Sy._No.5l, measuring 28 acres and l0 guntas of Konappana Ag:*aha1%a, Begur hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, formed estate, totally measuring about 308 acres.' 'l'fhe_ e.s£al;e including the suit schedule properly Kxfas «. ancestors of the plaintiffs for Patta No.40, issued by the .§fx3roxIe.rn'r1:le'13f§""~At some "stage, the patta was changed into Patta land was not alienated or S0ld:..b:lI:V the of plaintiffs or the plaintiffs till V 7*. sufit*'Y:3eh'ed'u-ledprogﬁerty was at a higher level' The aneestors--__of V fl;eAplafjnf.iffs built a tank to harvest rainwaterfﬁanad u:ill;:'e_. the same for the purpose of irrigation. The ean1.e-,fo--,he known as Govinda Chetty Kere, The eonst1*nLi:3.onV G§!V_"£hé: 'tank was before the Mysore Land Revenue Code l8'§§8.e'arn"e4finto force and survey was introduced. A5 the suit schedule property was a tank bed, it "e.l:i;'fas.:;feated as Kharah and exempted from nayrneni of land R.,F.A.N0.565/'08 revenue. However, the revenue records reflected the suit eeheduie property as Gevmde Chetty fierce and 'E§:'_}i:'--:{3IEi'tiIu'€ viﬂage eame to he known as Gevinde Chetiy Paljfe. water was utilized for the gmrpese efvirfigetiee of 13:1 V ' the eeteie and the viliagers also used':'the. \eate%' needs. Gradually the lands 'fers:1e.nd"

revenue, Came :0 be solder Qe'ei;q:i_:2::1eyirighfs'~Aee4rI1e te be granted or Converted fer nonegrieulturel-pufpese. The entire area is deve1opecE.._V':'ane.!_ eernee the Bangalore Metropolitan Afee .ei1§.1: ;;e}§edu1e land.

9. :7__ii -'was a partition in the joint family by regi"et_ere;:i on 5th March. 1873. In the vpertitioefeeed, thereie reference to the estate in Kennapanna egrelﬁeee e%_hi,e}*§:v"'i::c1udes the suit schedule property under in the partition deed elated 2931 October tee eivzit .12§..nd is shown as the preperty of the famiiy and "«..':net£er ef the partitier: emeeget the different Afier SL3E"'%.«"€3? eetﬂemene was inireéueed xmader the % \] R.F.A.N0.5eé5,{O8 land revenue code, the tank Came to be the official records as private Tank of Gei}tt1d'a« Cixettiafehsdthefe was also Revision Survey Sett1e:meIit__.:"._The 'sv_31Ait~ seh.etZuIeu property was described as GeV*ind'atTGhett§ 'Kerei":,f:

10. The suit in the name of the great-grkandfathe--rv_. of SHIVAYA CHETTIAR, whe. ' hf Govinda Chettiare After his thiehvhshare of the plaintiffs father _w_'he died on 16.05.1992.

Thmugheut,» the band the record of rights stood in the _ ._r1ame"' Shivaya Chettiar and Late ;V.'NtVishi%Va,r1athsn. "'1"h'ere was no dispute regarding the the piaintiffs father by any one including hhv'-,..the etefehdat:ts:.'i__ in the index of land, in Column ---~ 1?, it is §:ieserihe§:i..eLs.V Chevinda Chetty Kere. In Column No.8, it is vs51e{ewh'Tthatvthe land is in possession of the piaintiffs family by eehstytxeting the $3.1/liie «Aw \ R.F.A.No.5_6_$/08 1}. it is stated, before the Mysere Land was introduced, Patta of agricultural 1.:md_s irij:.{\r'e_al ll ' also was governed by the Notifieatiotiis is..Is§u~é:i l£;_§.f'C}_e~se1=:?imei%:t ef India on 30m April 1869, 27'5:__Pr1.;guefv-1889 laminae 1872. The Patta was issued to tlfi_eVjar_1eie_stoi'eVtheilplaintiffe by the erstwhile Reveﬁuef Gevernment of Mysore as Paiita No.40 Mysore land revenue code enactment was introduced. ﬁgriovided that tank beds, which areiefielltv lOfll.trhéV'VlﬂdiX7idualS, vest in the governmene' The it abundantly clear that tan}: bedVe""ef"p:i\%alEe_»ltaiiks are not the property ef the Undei*li:iie-«Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, at:.,idefi'Lieai._iiirergiei-on is introdueecl in section 67 ef the Act. At riepheifit ei"eiir:ie,vVthere is adjudication ef the rights and title ¥',_ .Q4f'iii€ l312§»i:1{i§fe family in respect of the suit schedule property S'u.b~eeetien 2 of Section 5? cf l964 AC': or {he relevant §--:l:.:~vis::ielr':e ef the Land Revenue Cede ef 1888. i R.F.A.No.5f-35/O8

12. The officials of the Revenue Departtnientaraeelinhed to transfer the khatha and the defefndant dated 9%" June 2003 rejected the the transfer of Katha in their favoar_v:'ne_1din'g t_ha_tSe:etion-L' 67 of Karnataka Land Revenue t.heu.tan}§' bedyfests in the State and the entries we1'eT-made} inrihe Revenue record showing the land as,Goverr\.rnen.t Landf 1. ~

13. The? that the lands vested in the. '~.tvm&'de--r....Section 36 of the Land Revenue C-ode_ of-the Land Revenue Act. In respect of "is mentioned in the registers maintained Lbytu" thevv.vPu.b1ie": Works Department, now, in 1-§.rri"gatio'nAV' Department' "" or Forest Department. The suit schedi;1_e'Ear;dr Chetty Kere is not mentioned as ""*~V"~GoVernr:nentV. .tan}i or property, in any of the Government ~ register. Orrthe other hand from 1975, there was a survey of aIr1r\r,,i{hve'»_Qovernrnent tanks in Bangatore Metropolitan area. said survey euinzinateri in La}«:s'nrnan Rae Cernrnittee 3, 10 R.F'.A.N0.565/08 Report in 1988. There is no Inentien of Gevinda Chetty kere at Kenappana Agrahara or 83; No.51. The suit preperty is not treated as Government }and. ThejGrdee;". ' Special Deputy eornmissioner does n<3i~a<1jud_ieaV':e'e ihe" rights V' as siipuiated under sub-«seetien (2) of :he_?1:

14' The Government ef '.V'a}3.'}:j:30inted a commission known as survey the Government Tanks in Area. After thorough survey? recorded and published eurvey did not include .4 'L/.

the Tank in__':he -su'i'E;I;:'eheciu3._epreperty as it was fouim e be a Private Tankhﬂandv f:0f'.VAa»-hiﬁeeernment Tank. The land is eharaetexééeeci as to connote that it is not an Imam Land jaryd 1angi-.iS"~- hahle for assessment of land revenue. AS the as Kharab being a tank bed, the land revenue ivaé; .ne'ft ievieé and it was exempted.

" ,,, L§ it is siiatech after the death of the plaintiffs father, ef {he khaihedar eame ﬁe be deieted and an entry I 1 R.F,A.No.565/O8 was made showing the land as GOV€I"f1II1€t1?5:__ notnifieatwn dated 271" October 1998Vpub1ish'ed' Gazette dated 3031 October 1998:'».._urgdeet' 'E3-eetijen"V§3'{..1}*1.i'§5f Karnataka Industrial Area DeVe1e.prnent._ suifid' schedule property was notified But, the land was not acquired. :.t_he)"ether nrit/V*ate lands, under section 28 of the has been issued on «:eeti'dv«.nAetifieation, the suit schedule been included. The defendantVN<j';;3. the suit schedule property executed in favour of the defendant No.u4;.._vttSvinee_ tt:e':*e.:~is no acquisition of the suit land, Vt-he defe1§.<:ian"t Ne.'1u<")r.th.evdefendant No.3 had no right or title the"s.uit._Vsehe'du1e property. Therefore, the Ieasedeed It"t.___e:><:eeu'ted*'b3}the'defendant No.3 in favour of the defendant Next in fer the suit schedule property is Concerned, it 18 "..Ifn,{1£ity:_ in tau? and not binding on the plaintiffs. The p1d;int§_ft;eA eenttnue te be the ewners and the defendant Ne}; E E 14 R.F.A.N0.565/O8 has, as its Components, a four lane 11} kins. expressway between Bangalore and Mysore, 41 kms. ef periphei":;{iL:'--Vfead and 9.1 kms, of link reach The land is Government out of the lands at its disposal 'ialidiéiigiéé 9 of acquisition under the Karnaiiakéa--_ it In<ii;Lsti'i.aE. it Development Act, 1966.

19. The axrei'rnente~._..V:"th2'tt 'of Konappana Agrahara, Begur hebli, is a distinct part of estate estate including the above by the ancestors of the plaintiff?" for 'years and the tank was built for irrigation' Jtank came to be known as (}Qyinda,.§?he'tt}t denied. It is contended that by 'deed executed by the defendant No.3 in favettr No.4, the defendant No.4 is in V'7'ti._'pe:ssessiex1i..the suit land and the piaintiffs have no right i 'V.eﬁ:e:'Vtheetiitiisehedule property? it is evident from the reeerds Sj;:,F'~ie.51 is 3. Gevernrnent tank item tirne irnnietnorial 17 R.F.A.N0,565/O8 exempted from payment of land revenue' Further he submitted that the piaintiffs trace their title to sehedute property through partition deeds dated ~ and 29.10.1908 i.e., exhibits R12 and: 9.113' 1111:; K' and 13.13 make it abundantly clear an paint of time the family members "~G0v11'ida Chetti'af' '<:"1a1'med"

ewnership of the suit did not partition the suit schedule as of the suit schedule propert},*'::¢:V§izas purpose at maintenance of tt'»hix1*a1aya. Exhibits R12 and 13.13 the contents can be presumed he he submitted that EX.P.5 shows thatvNa1tﬁa,VSh1V--a3fa_ Chettiar had constructed the tank fjaﬁed C3h1izi1,;da 1v1.Cz:hetty"'E'€;e1*e and he was in possession of the same." tank register extract, it is stated that the x*"ta111< if1»._t{0r1a.§1§3at1a Agrahara is called Gevinda Chetty Kere it is 'a__f;2r1vate tank. In EX.P.'?, the resettlement and fes1:.:*:ey_A.';*egister. the name of the holder is'shr:rWn as Nama Chettiar and there is 1*efere11:::e to Crexfimda Chetty ,..,..M_W_~.,..~»~./N,__.W¢Wmg.mWamg»m«a«¢Aww« 18 R.F.A.N0.5€>5/08 here. In EX,P.8, the extract of the preliminary entries ShOW as Govinda Chetty Ke-re and the n_.a1<neA:df:'Nai:::a*, Shivaya Chettiar is shown as occupant. theu' preliminary record, the name of GOVihda:..'_Chetti'af isv kathedar. In EX.P.18, the reitieieaé seAtt1eme;ftt.:I:e;s§i'Stei;, the' , ,?%§§::>5z;:?e§§<:5>::%:%' name of \?.N.Vishwanathar}V. is '$}*:exxLjh' Ex.P.1 RT C for the years 196$? the name of V.N.V1ehwanathah e ..,gh¢:g;£%ri_ ; 197344, some names are portion of the land as bagar hukum~ RTC extract for the years f_N..Vishwa11athan is shown as holder in' eoldmh Column No.12, the name of :_V;§\§._Vis.h$?2ra;1athan ieeh-awn. The entry in eoiumn No.6 as "sVara1>;a't'i"_ i:e.dieat.eVs-the land owned by the individuals except E1X.P.3, in column Nag? the name ef tkfishtvahdétthan is shown as holder. T he land is described for the year 1991~92, and for the year V' it is described as 'Sarakari Kere Ahgala". Exhibits ea R3, eta, R20; R21 £11'}§ 12.22 are the are extracts %;M » 20 R.F.A.N<:r.565/O8 plaintiffs father is shovm. In 199192, entries haVe___been changed and it is shown as Government tank. Till the name esf \f'.N.\3"ishwanathanl the father of * there. Further he submitted that ll Cihetty Kere is a private tank. He tank register extract shows that'-.t:h*ee»tank__is' a tank." V He also submitted that the..V.State"'l:1.aenet, ftle(iv--.an§§7 written statement nor adduced ant}? adverse inference has that the appellants evidence and it may be enhfnltted that the additional evidence .5-.~'>uhil1: by the ancestors of the plaintiffs _is not 4'C3«o_i?e:fn'£nent"'tanl{ and it is a private tank. » __relian«::e en the Cleeisien of the Henfble Vttelnlorted in AIR 1966 SC page 605, the learned leetihselixsfor the appellants submitted that if a thing or state'-._ef things is Sl'lOV\T1 to exist? an inference 0f its _ee«ntinuity within a 2*e.aeenabl}; pre:>:irnate time bath ferwarzje §'wmW\...W 21 R.FtA.No.5e,5",<Qe and backwards may be drawn under S€C'Ei_£')I1v_4_"1.14w.:V'Of th'e._ Evidence Act.

26. Further placing 1*e1iét1?;e°e.V_QnA"th_e of thee Horfbie Supreme Court regorted St(:_'p.f;§;'e 1441, the learned counsel for Where 8;

party to the suit d0eVsvnot:ta*p}.ﬁ.e:a,rV Witness box and state his Case himself to be cross eXamineci€.1;?y--::_tt;_eV. tfgfesumption would arise that the eorrect. In the present case, defencviattts 1 filed their written statement t0 .A teliance on the decision of this Court L» repotfigetth-.i:t Karnataka page 4637 and the decision ef the Court reported in AIR 1995 Orissa page i--e.a:*ti'e& eetmsel for the appeiiants submitted that the may be pe1*;mitted_ to produce additienai evidence 2' 22 R.F'.A.N0.565/O8 as the document. sought to be produced throws light en the germane issue.

28. Placing reliance on the dee1s1on_.ef Supreme Court reported in (2003) 8 learned eeunsel for the appellexfae submitted egi e{m'.1 ". suit the plaintiff cannot be eXpee'ee(:'.V te_Vpro"Ve tit Ige beyond reasonable doubt and a _c1egree.e£_'pfe~hebi1ity is enough to shift the onus er: the defe1<:vei_aj1:r1tV.~-- _

29. the decision of the Hon'ble (2003) 3 SCC page 4-72, the Ieerﬁee eppellants submitted that a presumptjen :,;:;:dé:<eJ's*§§§t:on 110 of the Evidence Act in f§2iifeur e:f;'Eh;eeA.:pe.:.eoe ih"'p'0ssessien regarcﬁng title and it is for the ether 'ei'vd'eA'.te4V%1<e:b;1t such presumption. Pieeiiig reliance en the decision of the Hon'ble Ceurt reported in AIR 1961 SC page 1277, the 'ef'u._v}e~3:.*:§e~§L 'ceuneeé for the eppeﬂaniis e1,:¥:>rr11','U:e::§ that when {here R.P'.A.N0.565/O8 is no evidence on record to show that 3 document is wiih the piaintiff or within his power and it is withheld inference cannot be drawn.

315 Further pheing I'€ﬁ8.I1C€:;:'OY1:_:.':'h:3'3 Hon'ble Supreme Court reported 1 165, the learned counsei for that 3 person in possession of e1'1"a.1H"aeter as .3 owner has perfect1yA._good:Atit--Ie_ the original owner and if ';Vi:ot'V:c0me forward and assert his his right gets extinguished and 'e-Vm.er acquires an absolute title.

32.v__vP1ae4ir3g're1i.af1<:e "'on the decision of the Hon'ble :_SupArer:'§e' C:p:=v:ur§ rejfofiéd in AIR 1973 SC page 1299, the :eé;:--;};egi%e" the appeﬁants submitted that the L""---=;zresu1'n3:tio:}. .:2:'1ff;sing from. severai entries in the revenue

-._.{'_j'jV»-meords foiejfirge number of years regarding ownership and possessioé: does moi; stage} rebooted by mere stray er:i:ries is % fa:{o_;_3_f of other person WW,<.<.w.\..w.

24 R.F.A.N<:>.5E35/O8

33. Further placing reliance on the <:le<:isi0ng'--:)_f the Horfble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 705, the learned Counsel for the appellants right to property is a human right.

34. Further placing relierlee O1:1V.tl'l€, Hon'ble Supreme Court _reportei::I'».:iri»._vAII§' page 647, the learned counsel -submitted that .21 decision is only an,.~.3;1thefI'(y leetually decides. What ie essence.--ii';:. aa 1;fi_C?i7iS'i{}n its'-:3' Ifiéio. . 35, the decision of the Hon'ble S1l'pffe'me in (2009) 8 SCC page 483, the_.l,ear:'1Le'Cl the appellants submitted that eee}~;. tlﬂplehlvits awn facts and a Close similarity betweetjl. er3_e"--.eaeee-.e:1d another is not enough and a single evignificaht f8J::f/ alter the entire thing:

Plaeing reliance er: the decision ef the Hon'ble Court reported in (2006) 1 SCC page 368, ehe 27 R.F.A.No.565/O8

39. We have earefully considered the made by the learned counsel fer the p:itti.€e. H l

40. The point that arisesetfor 0111*' ee'n.sldeVtvétltien list} 3 Whether the Trial Court 'in that the plaintiffs have jt2ile&._prc_'i§e title and etenership to the suit schedule propetig tf"ce."titg3i;agned judgment and decree cj'alii§g.jor i%*tte;'j'e'fefiee?----"' *

41. nete',"~th€§ suit is for declaration, direction and pernialient The plaintiffs claim that the suit seheelule ..ptepertj,2i'.§f:ias Come to them through their V'?'LXv1:'].-C€St:0:!."'E.g§':."¢'R,T1'Ti0 0\i}nedvV___§_Q.8 acres of land including the suit schedule ]§i¥gp«¢7e:;g under patta N040 issued by the Goveifninent;f*--._'éit'j'-Same stage, the petite number has been lllA"°'ehangecl.__ae 0.20. The plaintiffs ancestors built a tank "W2:"e:f"'irrigatie.n:' purpese and the tank came to be imewii as ﬁihetty Keiie, The tank Water was Litiliseel for the gmitpeefee ei irrigation anti the villagers are else used the water i E W 29 R.F.A.N0.565/O8 measuring 28 acres and 10 gnntas is a Government land and it has been transferred to KIADB and in turn transferred the Iand to the defendant No.4 Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Projee't»--.thro'eogtn'"}eeee-'_dee»d V' dated 4.7.2002. The defendant No.é§'.ts suit schedule property. It is from that Sy.No.51 is a Government Tank a1'1(I-jiivt'.been't'ran$§ferred to KIADB for the project.

43. The have examined PWs.1 to 5 been marked.

44. he has examined DW.1 and exhibits to havedbeen marked' The -sieeond plaintiff i.e., PW,1 in his eXarnination~ 4 C42"! V' in~eh.1e/ft ' haed 1*e'_iterTated the plaint averrnents. In his cross» eX:~;rnination;_to speciﬁc questione, PW' .1 has answered as .1 » .foi1ew.§ : i4 ~ ._ 30 R.F.A.No.565/O8 Question: What was the nature of estate as referred in para 3 of the plaint. Vvhat do you say'?

Answer: The suit property is part Ir1easurir1g 308 acres -

Question: Have you got any t'it1e<A_A<t:1Aeeds"

your ancestors owned 308 acr.es~~._yof \}vhieh,_ suitytvsehedule' property forms part of the Answer: Only reverioe' Question: Show that your ancestors owneéci years.

Ans\2x:rer':"t' reﬂeeted in the partition deed of theiwgz} t T hose par'tition_sf.devecis are written in Tamil Ianguaget Tfhere is.j."ho\p../speeifie"oierition in EXQPJZ and 13.18 that since:

20(}__y'ears«otzrarieestors owned. an estate of 308 acres of land v}"'*~V"perta§r:irtg to 'suit sehedule property Sy.No. I dont have ..ffjvggy-».doeuoéer§t to show that patta number eopy was granted to ou'r.._ai':eestr>rs by the govermrreot for an extent of 308 31 R.F.A.N0.565/O8 acres, I dorfi: have any revenue records with me to ShQ__W' that patta No.40 came to be changed to patta No.20 subse'qs;ie1fiﬂ:y. Question: Have you any revenue records that, land comprised in patta No.40 or paigta suit preperty Sy.N<3.51. < V ' ' V Answer: Index. of land daVL¢u§£1¢§:té%'eare there which I have filed in this _A ' ' K A 'A Question: Suit land 1..;;:£11tixratior1, what do You say"?

Answer:    is the question
of Cultivatiori." -   '

46. 'rﬁther' :: }:'r»i;£=s'-1.:_ erdss~examination, P.W.1 has stated 't.iiae"te:ere is a recital in EX.P.12 dated the suit and had been gifted to Shiva 'Fem;p1efe§1d.A'.e'e.--{',h0uItry for their maintenance which are AVe'i:uated"««.. 3169;? -.e3e.nga}ere Railway Station and the Same .4 H " fee.€.jf'a}.eVeare i*ea,ffir::1ed in EZx.P.13, «A» 5"

34

R.F.A.N(:>.565/O8 the land Comprised in Sy.No'51 is ShQW"f1 as Govexfhment Property. In ElX.P.2 for the year 1974~'?'5 at fhe name of the lessee is Shawn as V.N.\r'ishwanathé:n. E32; at CLNo.12{2) the land in sy.No.51 j"s"h:§:::m'«.3s-:

Angela.

51. PW.3 has state_d issued by their office. V .4 V '«

52. PW.4 notice was issued by him fi'i'§§ng'the suit. The notice was sent tQe"t'f1'e §e'ef.eta1S2';V'Rex7enue Department and the ChaiI'II:V1 '<1IV1:«'.0f; notice was sent by the registere(1V.pos'VLe " the postal acknowledgements a;'iiCi'vthe§;-.}{iaiZ"e been miséfﬂeced in his office.

" e:i9ess~examination, PW4 has Stated that he V7__Air1a$ me ac;£0.g:{:.::1ei'"1ts to Sh£3'W that EX.P.1~4 was sent to the { =.a::f.§1ei":i:iee by registered post and he is not in pessession ef ..e::13erV'pe3€aei receipie or poem} aeknowiedgemeiﬁs. 35 R.F.A.No.565/O8 E34. PW6 has deposed that in pursuance of th€~._1€ft€i' Ex.P.15, the endorsement dated 30.10.2007 has as per Ex.P.16. EX.P.17 is the certified copy C: the year 2006437. Ex.P.18 is th:e'AA'Vce:<ttfied,«c0ijytot?the 9 settlement register. Exhibits £3.19 a1»9e_-v_tthe'.eett1ftei§_ copies of the RTCS. Ex.P.24 cer=ti.fi'ed"'_= the preliminary record maintained certified copies of the documents have not been issuedé to the suit Land is not "The entries found in Ex.1-3.19 arettttie' records maintained in their 0ffiee.VvV'TV1'ie the acceptance of mutation. He has votcunteeied that acceptance of mutation document is I-ft0't'v3.Vaii1-able?in"t--t1f1eir effice, He has stated, with regard to suit sctie.d'tt};eV'ptf0;;e'ft§;t,_ifé.;he acceptance of mutation document is ézet availabie~ ttieir effiee, With regard t0 other iands such ,,.A/..:A:vi'viO§§i"/'.I."{?i:';f:f1t}iS_t:1Ot availabie. He has stated that the contents of true and cerreete He dees not knew whether Pi its 93 were ieetzeé by their e:>fftee. He has Stated E i aw 36 R.F.A.N0.565/O8 that the Contents of Ex.P.24 are true and Correct. Since 1860 till this date, the suit schedule property bearing Sy.E?{<:;,.tS1_:'hVas been mentioned as sarkari kere in revenue,"'and_u':3i1ﬁ?ey records. Apart from E2X.P.1'?, there.:a1*e..4dec?_tttaeﬁts xi"114.'_thé.i.r office issued by survey department that tank bed area. The contents of aire__tfu.e eo'rfect. 'V

55. In hie cross»eXa;rtziir;a1{:AiV0I;_eA stated that the contents of Ex.P.23._ are the land in Sy.N0.51 is uIti':Ex.P.23 in column No.12 (2), the deeeribed as Government tank. In the land is shown as Goxzernmentttatgtk, N011 of EX.P.23, it is rt:entiene_§Ei that transferred to PWD for Bangalore Q'My,-%pre_vEXt)feae"'High\vay. As per the records maintained in their." 'at;'n_e"T;;.jaroperty mentioned in EX.P.23 is in pessessiea the NIGEL, As per the documents which have A'p're_§:iueed§ the land in $y.Nc:>,5i i.e., Suit schedule ._;3:*apet'ty is Gevernmeat taxed and it is a Government. tariii. i"

37

R.F.A.No.5_e_5/08 56% D,W.1 has deposed that the suit as Gevernment tank in the reVenue:;reee1*d«s dated 27.10.1998 has been iesued;__ deciaring that the suit land and theethehf 1a.nd.:3:

mea for BMIC project. has&VAaata.fed"tl:_1at 'thev-.(}e{Iernment aeeorded approval by to lease the Government land j:::'i'aTy*ouir'VVe'f enxvard transfer in favour of Iexiedeeession of the suit land has 1aVeen_A'de:Ii\}»e7;'eg1éeeeession certificate along with eoveriiitxg The defendant No.4 has been in posseasaon, ﬁease deed dated 4_~.'?.2002 has been exeei1'ted and NECE. The suit schedule is of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs ha\%e- nd'_rifgii§"ej' tii1e"in the suit schedule property. 5?.' ~.I;f1«;_ his ereeaexarninatieng DWI hag stated ihat gee-.;§;o{ the ewners of the suit schedule property and 'V.'j»:f__eeerege ahew that {he suit schedule pmgerty is a Government Exhfeita 3.33 and 9.24 are the prelimieaery M.».'W.,..

3, 39 R.F.A.N0.565/O8 No.12 (2), for the years 1969320 and 1970331, the;1é fI1§; of V.N.Vishwanathar:. is ghown. No crops are grov§:;ﬁ;'«--.'£7 yéars 1973-74, the names of Abhaiahappa, S/0.Ramaiah and have grown crops like ragi, torsiatp et(};._ 2 TheTV'Ei1:.1t§.xfati_:)n unauthorised.

60. In EX.P.2, the 'year 1974~75, in column No.9 it Kare and V.N.Vish\vanatf;a;:i,';_..__VIA; :i'#';V ShOVV1"1 as RR.103.

In column In Column No.12 (2), the name shown for the year 1974« 75! No CI'OpS ﬁolumn relating to khatha N0. 1%: _____

-- the RTC extract for the years 199192 199'2~}9~9f33,4j'..-- column No.9, it is shown as Govinda " § :3E1;ét'i§f K€i'€3=E;f1C': V.N§Vishwanathan. In calumn No.10, it is » 'Sh{}'§§"§T1 a'§_.A'RR.193. in érelumn N06, it is ghirzvrz as sarakari. l'€o.12 €21 {gr {E25 giaars E99}-Q2? E§§2~93, E': is £1-O R.F..A.N0.565/O8 shswn as Government Keys Angsia {Goxismmsnt tank bed}. The cohimn rsiating to khatha N0. is left blank.

82. In EX.P.4§ the record sf rights" it is Gavirxda Shstiy Esra has been constfigctéti as a;'p::'ivs:s'i?'ani~:. by Narna Shivaya Shsityz, S/s.GmfindVé;~..$:}:s.i:t}r funds.

63. In EX.P.5, the -:naex_cf;.f; 1g:;':1,'1--n column No.1, Sy.No.51, it is shows.' as ssxfékaifi. No.7 and 8, it is shown as Govindgi Ke:fe.._a:1'd'--i: is in possessisn of 0m Nama "

64. If} register extract. In column N{>.5 GQ§"iﬁd§1 'Kass shown as private tank. It is sf Konappana Agrahara. In remarks :}011;{:31fi§._if:: is "ihat repairs to "the buns to be attended. 85 " E;2<:.P.7, the Myssre Ravision Settlement Rsgistsr eX£;*sCi',_ fihs name sf the hsider is shown as Govinda Seiiy Ei'Z.sfrs, 3 '$33.

41 R.F.A.Nc..5e§/08

66. In Ex.P.8, the preiimmary record, in khaihedar eelumn, it is shown as Govinda Chetty Kere. T he occupant is ShOW'I'1 as 01:: Name Shivaya Shetty, V

87. EX.P.9 is the akarband ex£:<ac;i{ s;ﬁd1E>§.p,,1<3 survey sketch of Sy.N0.51 and it' s3jk_afi;vV1{haI':ab. "

£38. EX.P.1i is the Vgéf?;Cah_)gi;f§::1j.h€ plaintiffs are the children of V"N.Vishwah§1th--ah,_ Nama Shivaya Chettiar and N'a.r1§*:va _ son of V.GOVinda Chettiar.

69. deed dated 5.3.1873, the land bearing fiaf,§aV.N0.3i_OV""ihe1uding the tank have been 1e§§e1L1e1e'{e1..':fr:7m 'partithjf:""eh the ground that they have been given he Chatra and Shivalaya situated near '°"'Bangak:--3:_e staiien for maintenance by the eensent Qf 'ii 42 R.F.A.N0.565/O8

70. In E2<;.P.13, the partition deed dated there is reference 1:0 patta No.40 and the tanE:.;.v. E=*':eVV pafta N040 has become patta N0.2Q:;:and_:i§:

Masalamani and excluded from p.a_rtiti0i3. v.

71. In exhibits P.12_.a:1d paf:f3--}.and§ in patta No.40 or the tank have n0{"b§ien 'alletfeﬁ.V§o:a:1yb0dy's share.

72. EXP. 13;. jggyie legagl :;i=btiee"'e1zu:€;£?1:'e§1. 10.2003.

73. for issue of certified copies.

74. is.:£hAe. efidorsement stating that IL, RR patis':'b<3'oks ;fe13JL'vi'ri"g'"f,€j Sy;N0.51 are not available.

" '35;--.? the RTC extract for the year 2006~0'7. §n'e01urﬁi: zN"ea.9';4'it is shown as (Government tank) KIADB. In ii is shex-$11 as Government and in eaiumn is shewn as Gevernment tank for the year E i , 43 R.F.A.NQ.5E35/08 200807. In <::01um11 N01 1, it is r11er1ti<3ne::1 that the land is g1've11 to NIGEL through KIADB an leasse.

76. In Ex.P.}8., the Settlement column No.8, it is shown as Gevincla Sett}z4I§efe1 4' '

77. Ex.P.19 is nothing bL11t..1f:>;,13,1[ V

78. Ex.P.2O is the yetgrét 1979~80. 198081, 198182, .V1982j8w3~.:.,g§;<1c1'V---V1;3_8'33?é{tV'1ilttin EX.P.20, in coiumn No.9, ._ Shetty Kere and V.N.Vish\xra:1attt1'a§1t"V'i'_§1' show:r1 as sarakari. 1n 197980 to 198182, it is shown as G0i>'1'11(i21 For the year 198283, the 1f1ame <3f}¥See:13.p;3V'9;',»..S/ 01%-'anjappa is shown. Fer the year net";-':1_e of Chikkaappaiah, S/olfenkataramana * x V Setty' -1 e ':"~7E10'W1'é'.;L: .. V V'. n is the RTC extract for the year 1974-75.1 I4'11 'eQ'i::..1"t:1":r1 N08, it is showrx 3,3 Gevirzcia Shetty Kere arid Vt 'Sf;§\§3f1shwa11athar11 in eeiumn No.6, it is Sh{}V§?1'1 3.3 Wm 44 R.F.A.No.5e_5/as Government. In eeiumn N0.12{2} for the years name of V.N.Vishwanath3.n is shown. JNQ_c:mp's'é;re'_gr€imf:';f

80. Ex.P.22 is the RTC e;<t_raC£ fQf'--the 198586 and 198687. In No.9',._V_1:C£s as' Govinda Shetty Kere anei."K/.N:Ff1s1r{§ve§f:s;thafj'_'~,,. hi column No.6, it is shown as GoV'efh_ment:"V::' hi' N010, it is years 198485, :

'kere'.

shown as R.R.103. co1Lifﬁ1::":1.?§A..: 198386 and is: is

81. for the years 1997598, 1998-99, 1§s9e2%o0oVV1"a;%sui ;z:§::1::2002. In Column No.9, it is shown as _(sark2iri)"KIA.DE.f The land has been transferred to :I.~7W_D the land has been leased in favour ef".Ni(:EL, foV::*'«4C¥_ ye_ars. In column Nc>.12(2), for the years 199§*9$§--._t0 it is shown as sarakari kere.

82. E;_§i.P;24 is the preliminary record. In kathedar "--..'C:ﬁ"urjr::r13 ii: is shown as Gsvinda Sheity Kere and Qeeupant is W3;;;m.W VWQVV 2 », 45 R.F.A.No.56.5__/O8 shown as Nama Shivaya Setty and the tank is private: tank. '

83. Frorn exhibits R1 ﬁg ifins}c1ear{5.'vi}3f:t}«iejféi:1ré;'*g 1989370. 197Q~7L 19:74-75! the n2:§f{Ine of"J,VNv;Y§i=sHx3§§éLné$than'V is shown in column No.12{fZ) of H"c3.has'not gfowrx any Crops. For the year 1":'3'.7i:'}~:'}'T-4.3.5, iv pf K.V.Appanna Reddy, Abbaiahappg /C>.R:a11.'h1--éfi::3}l1' is shown in column 12(2). :_ cultivation is £0 198182, in column Nc:>.12(2) Shetty Kare. For the year 1982~8i'§,"V--t:1'§1e S/oﬂanjappa is shown in Colurngnélo. 12(2).' For the year 198384, the name in Cehnnn N0.12(2) of RTC. For the: 1988-81 in cniurnn No.12 'i0f RTC, it éﬁow sh0§vn._ For the years 199182 and 1992-93, it is ..J.fi,sh__nW1j:Tasttifaﬁvernment Kare Angala, in Column N0.12{2) of the years 199?~98 :9 20cn~2<:202, it is Shawn as H Eiera in Column N<:«.12(2} af RTCE Fm' the year 46 R.F.A.No.5€:Eg/08 20032007, it is shown as Government tan1:i'§"':.::\§:1 No.12{2) of RTC. In column No.9 c:;f"éxhibit4s V' R20 and 922, it is shown as "

\f,N.Vishwanathan. In column Ns_'.E3._sf zt3.sw:L' (Government Tank) KIADB. In it is shown as {Sarakarﬁ (£3.11; of extractsg it is shown as sarakari. in the/Q RTC extracts is Isft of Om Nama Shivaya Chettist', is shown and it is stated, th<f't"téiI:A}«;.:':vfis his own funds. In E3:x:.P.5, in V<::'s11;11f''I11'; % is shown as sarakari and column 7 Govinda Chetty Kare and it is sf Shivaya Chettiar' EX.P.6 shows Kare is a private tank. In Ex.P.7 also, the iii;§:'it.1er is shovm as Gsvinda Chstty Kere, in hEt:2<;.P.& t}:1§s'vt§hath€dar column, it is shown as Govinda ..Ksrs."~----;£'he name of the occupant is shown as Nsma S}:§i?a§}*a-- éihettyt E>«;P,§ is Akarbsnd extract and EX.P,1O is tsiurazsgi' skstsh sf Sy§s,5E and it is shswn as Ssrksri Khsrsh. 47 R.F'.A.N0.565/08

84. In exhibits 13.12 and P13, the partition needs dated 5.3.1873 and 29k1().1908, patta land in pat.ta.tN»_C';»é}O and the tank have been excluded from partitienetint it is stated that patta No.40 has bec:0n1e_4pa€;te'vVN'e}2t§"V' has been excluded from partition. The hf based on exhibits 13.12 and Int exhibits R12 and P13, the.patta'tan<_j- i\1'e,4v€) and the tank have been eXC1udect't1TC>'It{ is stated in Ex.P.12 that the the tank have been ' the reason that the land has of Dharmaehatra and Shivalaya Station, Bangalore. In EX,P.13 _a1.s0, _:pmpettyE':';1s been excluded from partition nG»t--ka1i«0ttetd_ to en§?bedy's share. Therefore; the plaintiffs exhibits R12 and P213, H NRTC extracts produced by the plaintiffs ehew nentze ef V.Nf\fishwanathan and Cmvinda Setty Kere in '"2___ee§un3n"Ne,9. But, they <:1e:> net indicate that the 23nd in 48 R.F'.A.No.5_6_5/{)8 question i.e., Sy.No.51 of Konappana Agraharej:heV1eh§e'd:."_t0 Vishwanathan or the plaintiffs. Intact-;'i'n--rgpolrtmrt V' ' : ~ 'ea extracts, it is shown as sarkari. In E},x:.'P.§2: Ia; * Government land. The p1aintiffs..uh"e:.Vfe rfet__ titie"

deeds. They base their claim 01';--e§u;hibit.s P.'1i3l'and--'§P.13 and the revenue records whieh"riQ--net inéiieatepthat the ancestors cf the plaintiffs er the p1a.ih.tiffs'are the he-terriers of the suit schedule property. *No'_rdoL;_1bt€ the produced by the plaintiffs Kere was a private tank' T hGI:3...that the plaintiffs are the owners of The plaintiffs Claim title based on eXhibjts., and the revenue recorder The patt§a"1and in No.40 and the tank have been partition and not allotted to anyhody's share. 'I'heref7eéf_e,fA tii:e~v.piaiﬁ'tiffs cannot claim title based on Exhibits aria documents produced by the plaintiffs are i}1§§eqQ€ﬁt'~--te 19€S9w?0 though the plaintiffs claim that their a'13_e'est,ers'A OWH€d preperty for nearly 29:') years. Nething is ;§r:>d_:./teeeé te shew that the ancestors ef the piairxtiffs were the E E 2,.//"

50

R.F.A.No.565/O8 and others reported in (2003) 3 SCC page 472, the fact situatien is totally different as the plaintiffs had and peaceful enjoyment of the Iand. In the present plaintiffs have not proved long possession and ve'njVnyf'nen.t hf ' the land. In exhibits 13.12 and tank have been excluded from partitéeon. '1'haiWas dines" year"

1873 and 1908. From 19vO,8zVti11 to show that the were in possession and property. The entries in revennveffffteoffisi Different names have been Column No. 12(2) of RFC extraefsfp no merit in the Contention that section {1f"Exz:iL1envee':5fet is attracted and accordingly, "is. re} egedee _ elairn adverse possession. It is inc-onsisfentthe plea that the plaintiffs are owners ef the .1 --.su2°f=se11edu}e' property and their aneesters were the ewners of ff'f-4"_v-.1:hef.'.~sfif}:sehednle preperfy for rneere Ehan 200 years and the 51 R.F.A.No.565/08 suit schedule property is not .21 Government 1an<:i.;""*Fhe.:ei%;.i*e.A the plea of adverse possession is Without any: anti' it is not substantiated and therefore,[:rejeeie§:i'ﬂ_ '1 'A ' V "V The Hon'b1e 8:" V sa§§ism?sE@asn;snTisNn?5"eeisorsi in (2010) 5 SCC page 203-sites fo11ows:~ "I9. Suits for 'ofv.'tiifiije-- 'iagainst the Government, si:i1;iisr"to" 'sniisffor declaration of title agéiirivst significantly in son1e.s,aispieef'is»:,:'_ fihe firsﬂt'd.iffei*e1iee is in regard to the in favour of the Governtinent.' ﬁvhich are not the property of any pe1=son.Vo--r Whieii are not vested in a local E1f;1'§:}.1Q1fi"[y? beio.n_g_v to the Government. All :uneeenpi--eid-~, _ Lands are the property of the .€}e&%erninen?:;..iiniess any person can establish his :*igi"1t to any such land. This presumption avsiisbie to the Government, is not avaiisbie to any xpeifson or individual. The second difference is in 'KV:"egsrd is the peried. for which title anicifor fpossession has in be esiabiisheé by 3. person sning 52 R.F.A.No.5E55/O8 for declaration of title. Establishing title/possessiori for a period exceeding" twelve years may be ade:?;v.at.ei'~.. to establish title in a declaratory suit agaiitist' individual. On the other hand, title/possessioﬁjfor T a period exceeding thirty years" ".ha§selV"to established to succeed in a declaratorjif si:iit"for against the Government. fo'l1.o'§vsVfrtirriiﬁrticle 112 of the Limitation Act, Whichprescritoes a longer period of thirtyyearslllasiijivriitatioriiri regard to suits by the Goverriirient the period of 12 years for suits .p'riVa.te_ The reason is p C'g_oiterrirrieVr1"'t~----properties are spread over '"e'nt,iref'.-:S'tater-- it is not always poss1b.1e--Vfor"tl;ie.;G:oVerr1rrrer1t"--to. protect or safeguard its priopertieisl-"j'rorf1ieticroachments. Many a time, its owri __officers_" expected to protect its properties""arid rriairitaiii. proper records, either due toV_ufiegliA'ger1ce o"r«e.o_l_lt1sior1, create entries in records . to piiﬁate parties, to lay Claim of ownership or possessi'o.ri against the Goverrimerit. Any loss of Goyernroieritiiiproperty is ultimately the loss to the eomriadrﬁgity. Courts owe a duty to be vigilant to eristireﬂlthat public property is not eonverted into "'pri'vate property by unscrupulous elements. 58 R.F.A.No.565/O8 the suit schedule property. Exhibits D. 13. D14, 13.17. 13.18, 13.19. o.2o and 13.21 are the no::£ic'aﬁo_n.§""<§'a::¥i¢i 2?'.10.1998, 24.1.2003, 2.6. 1999.1" .'2oo3. ios%is.4.2:m 9.10.2003 and 5.7.2008. Ex.D.22 is :t11_e1'::Vertifi»e:3g Copy order dated 31.3.2000 passéci--u:':9n 1éA{.s:).'4..e%i/ iV9;9V9"~9.O0O. 9' Ex.D.23 is the certified §':£e§....jg,e.2oo3 passed in Revision is the certified copy of Ex.D.25 is the judgment in W.P.No.453v3'¥i').?.Gi~i;T,.; eases. EX.D.26 is the photocopy oi"«It'he 26.3.1999 in SLP. (Civil) No. 1423/ .999. certified copy of the judgment iii e:»vi_1VAp'}§e:ii N"'e,A3492'§'é%:94/2005. produced by the defendant No.4 thai: suit schedule property has been notified as 5_"i«ii'dai.siifio.i*~.are under section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial :?€VeIo}Qment Act, 1986. E.x:.D.6 is the possession V'-9.4:"'C,7'§;4i;i'§fiC8.§€ and Ex.D.'? is the iease deed dated a'i~.'7.2C}G2. E 59 R.F.A.N<:>.565/O8 Exhibits I16 and 1).? indicate that the suit schedule piinsperty has been leased in favour of the fourth defer:de;r_'iL't:j:"'fQr Bangalore» lvlysere lnfmstrueture Corridor Projeet. is the RTC extract for the year 2OO8:~O'7"E€7hi(i.fl.1 the suit schedule property has been'A1'leei3eAL:l in"ftiv:31ir defendant No.4 through defendeint:N0p.3. .

98. T he plaintiffs failecitel' that they are the owners of the suit sChedule"pi'.0:perty:.i._Theifeftife, the plaintiffs Cannot contend that leiise fg:lcjc_:ii1* lltjflthe defendant N04 is illegal.

94. by the plaintiffs do net Sl"10\\r that the i§i3.,_intiffe A5$trel"the owners of the suit schedule T{h.er'efQre,"theltrial Court was justified in holding thzlzit. they' have failed to prove their title and i"A""'Qw'nersAii.i};3 suit schedule property! Therefore, the '"".*::i'fi'13ilfJllIigfI'iV€{iu'}_.1i(igEII1€H'i and decree does not call for if1f;§3i'f€i"s3T1tf€:. There is 1:13 merit in this appeal and therefere, ggpeai is liable ti: be dismissed.

2 E

95. N0 order as to (tests, in the eireurrlstanees ofihe' A' €50 R.F.A.Nce'565/O8 Accordingly? the appeal is dismissed. I.A.:2/2008 for additional evidence is a11Qwe_'e1*;..VV ' L. e if

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court