R G Somashekhar S/O Ramegowda vs N Nagabhushan S/O Late Nanjundaiah on 16 March, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

R G Somashekhar S/O Ramegowda vs N Nagabhushan S/O Late Nanjundaiah on 16 March, 2011

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

 

~«-'az,-.<,4,,,._.-».- ,_ ..x -. '--~

  

 

ma: "WE MESH mum" C}? KARNATAKA A"? BAEEGALORE
DATED wig THE mm gm' QF MARCH 20::
BEFQRE
THE HONELE MR' JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCH§_(§§';E.F?;ih ~V_'j¥--:E  .
Mia, NO. 1286 OF 290:9      
BETWEEN: V 4'

R G §OMASHEKHAR

S/O RAMEGOWDA

AGED AEOUT 39 YEARS
NO, 188/2,II1MAIN ROAD
CANARA BANK COLONY

MARUTHINAGAR,  
CHANDRA L,-was?   _  
BANGALORE      ...APPELLANT
 % 'SS.Rf':':E2;.VNA*E{£\R5A:",' '}3x®'u"&3CATE)
AND; . <4 .    

:\1.NAGABHuSHAN~.._V - %
S/O LATE E\.E'AN}UNDA-TAVH "
Wx~3«QR     _____ 
Nil 1 82gi1Gu'Ru RAJA LAYOUT
KAvER1V..MAIN-vVRoAD"' 
NETRAV£»;FH'i -P.c~A[;2 

::%i'v%._:j,EMAvATHI Rou<é'§,.T1:x¢YsORE»11  RESPONDENT

u ., (43% 321:5 SHEKAR SHETTY FOR
M/'S.S.RA3U & ASSOCIATES)

. "mg4£:3~'Rm :3 FILED 2.5/5 95 0%' CPC, AGAINST wag

" 3jwi<;ME;NT AND DECREE amen a3:125200g PASSE9 IN

G.§fN'C«";9?8?/2006 ON THE FILE SF THE \! ADDL. CITY CIVIL

2"'.VV?~V':"';I{&§$:[3Ef BANGALQRE, BECREEING "WE SUE? FOR PERMANENT
 }'§\§}U?*\££T£§§'x§.



\..,M,,.,,,¢M,»..{ym..;:'.3,,g/~w -w V V

 
 

THIS R.F.ﬁ:. COMING SN FOR ADMISSEQN T§*~§I§ DAY, "%"H£
CGEJRT D¥ELIVER§§ THE FOLLQWING: 

JUDGMENT

This eppeat is directed against the judgment dated 3.12.2009 passed by the Court ehf'"th--e. Civi§ Judge, eangauore in 0.3,Ne,9?8?/2{§Ce.:''--A.A_t "

21, The brief facts of C_e'seV""e'te:V': that (me Sri Chikkahanumaiah had faydut on the {ends standing at AV_Sy.NQ,,_r-1% N.3vde'»t:;é?b'havi Viifage. Chikkahanumaéeh §.3.?;';""Ett:/3'3"J5f':\'tf%§'V~'§a%*d'iAEand to me Sri N.Bhaskaran by dated 19.3.1964.

Thereafter one the land measuring 4.4. guntas frernulregistered safe deed, dated 11.3.1981. E.-The said to one Pumshotham the siteVt3'earih'gé:.N'ds,3h'and dweerved out of the said iand by the registé;e:reVd._e-eeief':de'ed';-dated 28.51993! ?dr:..sshetham}En turn; the SALJ--§.3; se_hedVL§'.5et property (site bearing Nos,3 and 4) to the "'ze§;*'p'e__hdent--plevéifsétiff by the registered safe deed, dated g_'2:'.8e. $'{ﬁ€}S'£, 3, ﬂit the stézer and ef the §§@€§E'tJE":"£, the appattant -= §8feE"t€§a£'1{'§ father QE.§f'Ch8§&C§ the site ﬁearéng $305.1 afTdv..'2Lt'..{?'ft"€§§'1'¥ amt $3' the iands at Sy.F*=1o.46 {gubsequerztiy rentt_r;t3'i;étr'§§t£!:

118/3) fmm i\I.8t2askatan by a registered sate._.,§_§gweﬁ;VA..::::fate§"

11.3.1981. The gaid gites (bearing r~4os.;§ aw'2j'''we';e-t%ge*ttedt'bty 1:' the appelEant-~defendar;t's father En trig fi3'=.z_Q":;r bytgei d§:et:1T, dated 5.8.2004.

4. Both the parties citatthttta I:73t*:?'3V:%5V;S:%V.t~"§§iOn of the sites betonging to them. Ittst_he grf'év5§§§ct§:'af=1:tjt§'-ret§t)'t§'ndent--piaintiff that on 5.11.20Qa»,§'1..t_h§:.:gp';:}g;_:_a_§tazV:§ A to put up the construction CH".f'_i't§"$Lti:'éf:,; '";tre;>'%erty belonging to the respondent. the suit seeking the refief of perpetuai injunct'fmj{_ . 'VfI;h%A%;3V[5;3':£§~i'iant filed an elaborate written St;34.i€E":EV'¥enf_*:djgtlytttg' thV.é"t:ia.E.ms~ and allegations of the respondent. Thé"'sAumt"anVd --v<;4:;§i3$;tt.§é'i"i::,e of the written statement is that in the Zfagatb of .531Z'3;€i'¥<'iF'%gV'°£i:'t?5jjSt;3§é N033 and 4, the respondent is trying to _ '§tET}'C€;§f.€;§"€ in4'tt3e"'a:.p.tp'éEia:3t's tmssessiorn Gf site ?\ic>s,1 anti 2. A fS--.. 'B«.as§eé an tt2& rEva£ pieadérzgsg the Triai Caurt fatmuaated th:%{'fc:i.EQ.uis§rég issues: -

"Z, ﬂares the piaintfffgreve his fawfuf passessien " ' ever {he ecbedufe groeerty?

2. Bees the ,e£e;'rze'ff prove the xeterference ce::,s_}ez:{»_T2i:s.;g She defendant WIU7 his possessien?

3. What' order or decree?"

6. The respondent got himseif exemie-ed. ?es'=.?W'1':"ee:%i<_§n'g,e_AA the documents at E><,Pf£ to E><.P29.,»' -The e"pgdeSEa;ntV'}:'Adﬂefegfgdjeni got himself examined as DW1 marki:;a§V:g;"ffje.,dodL1'r'e.edi%s efi: E><.{)1 to E><.D45. An advocate, ea7ed_e¥y, Shekhar was appointed as the Court; CemVmi.ssipne},AAiV.,"!F;fev_.'$7f§e:§;"V'.examined as CW1, Hie reeert as E><.C1 and Ex.C2 respectiveljd dleadings, ora! and documentary its record, the Tria! Court answered the issdeés,ag'e§.hs'%.,th:_e"e:;5'p'eJ!ant and decreed the suit. byAAt'i*:e._..aforesaid judgment and decree, this appeal 3S,V}3A1'efe§'.Ijééd;_"'e.

8, R,,_"I'x:e'£eAraj, the learned counsei for the appeiiant " 'su':e"ri':i_;;s' that Trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit even _f:i:e'=E--d.eni:ity ef the sites is not estabﬁshed at aif, He sz§si;aEj:*:i*;s..--*'s'hat if a revenue survey were ordered or the Ceurt H1"'...TVL{Z*ekE"éi"g*;§ss§er"zer were te be appointed for helding the seet- s;;a~-w.-,«»~- -, ..n M» LIE Enseeetéee, the eeteeme wouid izeve been eiffereet Ever: when the respendent has met proved that he is in ieessessioifz,':2-féﬁiiie suit echeduie ereperty, the reiief sf injuncticm is _ so contends Sri Nateraj.

9. Sri Nataraj submits that the«Vee--nifusi0ﬁ_--,_ii1a»s=ai--i:seii"~ because Sri i-.i.Bi':asi<eran appears soizi ii*1..ofe tiaan what: he possessed.

10, Sri Nataraj submitVs...t.?i'3:ti that the sites bearing E:ip';eeiian's are comer sites. The iearnee,Vc:;i.'LV:;iiV.se'i" es the suit schedule property is for the benefit of EDA, the suit ought in iimine. He submits that, as the comEW;,isAQr3i'4.'aequ'i's'Etie'ii iands failswithin the eminent doiﬁeiiin' C3f"C'u'"tV.€ E:'_~""~ifi.;ai§?:'~,e_.:'i(:> respect of any property, which is the suAbjeci:_nfieiEVt:erV;'ufA'.i'i-eed acquisitiengie entertainable by the Civii rt.

Q: Wfhe appenaritfs side relied on the Division Bench ei this Ceurt in the case of THE COMMXSSIONER, " }jLieiA%N"eALoR.s i)EVELOPMEN T AUTHORITY v. M/S. Aem:

I." ii"-54nj.;;_ri*etie'n§mreuid not arise at air. 6 HOUSING INDUSTRIES LIMITEB AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2506, wherein it is heid that snare the iandV_is.t_oo_d divested from the owner and vested with the ecquiritztjuaeith-eti.ts<_._'" _ on account of the cornpuisory acquisition of fand; 't:iVae;EVar,t" "

any claim to the acquired land.

12. He further submits that'--v.,t:he> suit i.was.eIi:ah"ieV"Vte'V be V rejected on the short groundpf i:!f".te"'i':i."i:t>.:i'"'i"';3:'C35.T}d<*3"'ﬁA9?"i"iéi3€$Saf'V parties. In this regard, he sou§ht_'to"'d.rav? from the Apex Court's judgment in_tife:ev.._cas;eVV' OF FORESTS, Goveierme--i§:*r%_ :$:(.COLLECTOR AND omens reported. iaicvsf He woufd submit that the Drovisionsk'coritaivnjedficn Rule 1 of CPC make it mandatory for theC_ou.rtr reject the suit for non--joinder of vr7.e.cessa_r3i:::.'oahrties or*p.r.o_ceed to adjudicate the matter, but oniyafter"pi..itti--vn4g~rthe:"'B.D/is on notice. According to him, the suit if*seheduie*ni'oi:iert3;'é-"é"s:_aeciuired, award is passed and possession is i§?;;zs,is:en'Vei3y the When the respondent is not in possession ajiwdvwifien aiertoaliiy BDA is in possession, the question of granting ea VJV "'séV"£{€ 7 :3; The Eeemed eeuesei eiso teiied en the Apex Ceerts decisiee Er": the Case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR e. ¥f.!3V'isi!Ci§1iI RI-EDDY (emu) ev L.Rs AND OTHERS reported in_.§:15iIR}.'_2----f;3__(33%7$.i_"' . SC 2033 to advance the contention met if the"v~e.o~mo~i:iceteoiu questions of titie are invoived, the same }:;an;t»efe>{a.i':9ai.n'ieri 'okay a titie suit for decfaration and consee.1_1entEVeiA5.V_teiiefsi»'e'i'§.;;;.in_et in e suit for injunction simpiiciter.

14. He brings to my nxo't'itc:_e by the Iegai representative of fifed by the appe£|ani:'s written statement (Ex.D6), the E.eg'a~3 N"ez:itiunnisa has stated that the end 2) are in the iand at Sy.No.46, rehumiierecf further deposition is that the ii3i':<_>-i59fV'FY t'o'V"'Ne::.n1unnisa is at Sy.No.46 and that Sy.§V'ifV0A.~4§V'E:§7i.€i ---assessed separateiy. Sri Nataraj submits the"de'positio.hi'j_o:f the predecessor--in--titie of the respondent _ _:t>.i.hgds.the res;;1o"r"s«§jer:t.

_15_f *'--£"£--ri Sﬁhekar Shetty, the ieemed counsei appearing for S5Vii':'_:§w».i"2;ej:u for the respondent submits that in this case the ia"'~e.:i'eeieehce Es fee and the arguments are raised withetzt there being 8 any foundation in the eieadings. He seughi to buttreee his submission by reading out para 7 from the Apex Coigrte in the case of BONDAR SINGH AND OTHERS_.--i}.;'"'?s$.I§r§.AL._T'. SINGH Aim omens reported in (2003);; scc"1eiii.*_V; ,iVt'v:re"a;§ie: "

as foélowsz "F, As regards the wee .of«._eub~£:eneVr;a:*y argued on behalf of the defene'e».e:fs by frreifnfeearneo' counse/, first we may note» that tbisphlea L?ve_5 ne§rer"£*eé:'en in the written statement _wa_v it :.he"s.Vjbee;7_ put forth now, The written statement vegoe~:V._'&5.n{j racking in material perticzxﬁers. on zfnis:»e§eec4:;"~.b.L'}ﬁhere Vnotning to support this p'/ee-.eexa%e}:.t s'orn_e r-arr/eg_edfA'revenoe entries. It is settled fawi tnafin the ab:§e¥f_rce"'of avfﬂea no amount of ev1'dence.r«'/eh;Win";rereijion""tfjerero' ""Can be looked into. Therefore, in eifvev ,5/'ear plea regarding sub"

tenancy (<'3f1Vr/<mr),'ﬁne---j:fefe}?.oC§nfs cannot be e/rowed to bu/"id up a :e...s'e" of'v.'sobjrte»7'?nenCy (shikmi). Had the defen,denvts'.taken.'ssucn a 'plea it would have found place es en" resije ;'n~.tt.i*2e 31;'/Q We have perused the issues V'«framecf;rfn"'é"l;e §"u.r'_£f; "--}*"f7ere is no issue on the point. "

16,"._FAIe that the appeifant's written statement

----e.oee__*:1ot coiztein any averment regarding the cempuisory ee e*u_i§iL%i';'o»n_>'of ihe seheﬁuée proeerty by the Gevemmenf: and .B'§fm,..;"A:V"Fer%:her, he brings to my notice that the aepeitanifs written 'e_tate Enent eees net contain any objection that the suit suffere $3?

ewe"

frerh r2er:~jeihder of heeeeeargr eartiee, He further rnakes e euhtfe distihetéerz between a necessary party and e propera~.§§'a_§ft'-}rf BOA may he at the most a 'proper party' and hot eartyx' As the judgment and decree in quAes_tion _.d'e'e'e:r;ot'*affec:t-_ ii"

the interest of the EDA in any way, thed'-ecJj::;J'di=cat'ie_n'~eenhol:---.f;ie[ cafled into question at the ihstanCe~o_f"r%:lfie appeliaeht'{icE~e:?e..ntieht. Without prejudice to this coh'tentiohV,ﬁV:'_l:he:_'algvo 'sﬁtjtsV:rr1itsVAVtV:hat the suit schedule property is hotetllialii acq2.ui:!re"d.;&*».:}5;c.g;ordihg to him, only 20 guntas of the land at The fend at Sy,i\io.46 is a vast. left unacquired, according to Sri l' ' '

17. the land is acquired, then the local body wot,=..|.4d% hot' ieeuéed the khatha and would not hav_.e..$anctiornedi'thVe ;:V).'!a"nV:fo_:fé.;)utting up the construction by the res.;5C.nde:h't tn schedule property;

18f""l*3iextly;e:T.§3:Ei Shetty submits that if the appellant's _ _e.e--e_te'i1.tioh thetue"-ri l\£.Bhaskaran has sold more land than what ;'3__o':':§}Ses:sle'tf_., then it would affect the sale deed executed 53"? of; the appellant. Though the sale deed executed in ef the responeerrt and the appeiiarrte father are executed éaéwéeéa , WW , ,.m.,,,.,wwmmiMmMw .r~__. _.-_, ~'_ . 4 ' >';_ 1 0 on the same day, the exeeutéon of safe deed in favour' of the respondent is earifer 5?"? point ei' time, He submits that deed executed in favour of' the respondent bears _ 1841? (E;><.P3). On the other hand, the_sal'e favour of the appeilant's father bears further brings to my notice that ttiei'a«.::3_vpel!ai=i.tis fatherA..tiii:if3sVe.!3f is the attesting witness to the sale deed favour of the respondent. J i it it

19. Sri Shetty order can be granted in favout.'-~is:iAinVV_settled position and against the whole t-iiu.ei"owner. As admittedly, the appellant not "suit schedule property, he is restrained if5mL¥ the respondents peaceful possession.»iai'3'd'_"'enjo3}.n*ieh,t____of: the same. He also read out the rele$=antV:p'ottio..n ._c_:ross--examination of DW1 (the appellant) 1;=.t_i":at he'.isi1'et ih 'possession of the site Nos.3 and 4. My'~p'e:rusal of the judgment and decree under appeal s.ijV'ows:l:t'hatl"t'he Trial Court was not persuaded to reject the suit gtﬁotmd of the compulsory acquisition of the lands, as the '-tsam_e.'was not pieaded in the written statement, There is EH} H deuet that tee Civii Ceert has rte juesdictien te entertain a euit En reeeect er a property, which ie the eebject ma.tter_:ii~Qf compulsory acquisition. It is trite eesitien cernpuisery acquisition of iands falls withir} the e:rri::efnt»d'arr1ei:2." ef the State. The aggrieved party's onl3ﬂ_rer?rireg.fi'5r the H0n'bie High Court under Arti-cl_;e 2V2tC"{'end iv'ti4{e_j_b1Qn\}§;9ie Supreme Court under the Article 136 India.

In this regard, it is profitabVEe.._.t:'3_Areferi.t<jvij'tte*d»ecisions of the Horrble Apex Court §n._the t:HAND AND weeks 'if. Geese mm omens reported in «Magda OF BIHAR v.

omzeen [reported in (1995) 4 sec

229.. But the Acga,;e'stion'V..i$r-ijrgtineittiiieér'tithe entire land at sy.No.4e renumbered;:'aet_i1'4Eu3 pe acquired. This is a mixed quieéztieri.Qti"fact'.iand'%ew. In the absence of the foundation in the pEeadin'gs'«i'n ét!1=e:""errit.t'ers" statement, the Triaé Court tzasi found it i"v,::iiAE'ti'icris!t to gee by' timexrersion of the appellant. it riﬁprtniier, the appellant does not appear to have made ..cicap"p:ii'caAtien for the amendment ef the pleading for R'g.§rteeree'rating the pleas of neewnaintainabiiity of the suit on the at cempeieery aeeeisitien of Eends.

§§'i%+r§ I') a...-

ZQE ﬁts far as the question of rejecting or returnio.g*--the piairat: on the ground of non~3To%oder of necessary concerned, this Court does not see any objection ta¥:enjV'_b§7t!ﬁe~ appeElant"s side in the wrétten statemerit? "£3eo_ it as "nfp=;y';V"Va subtle distinction has to be made betweena n'eoessary.partyV 'V a proper party. The Apex Court in 'th:.e'V*casev. SING!-I MALPAHARIA v. Ap'n;rr1oNAr.:;'j;ﬁErM&een"'Sultan or REVENUE, BIHAR AND ANo14rH'E'_Iét'_';;n»_%aIR 1963 sc 786 has expressed a. party is one without whorriieffectéveiy; a i3r0Der party is one order can be made but whose presence for a compfete and final decision on the questionjr;.vo£y»'ed"»tn the proceedings.

"Ttie5»~.aappte!£ant hvatsétnot even made any application for . framinggadditionai issue regarding the non»

7.n*':a*§ntaEnaAbi§__ity_,o~f_t't.hAe suit on the ground of nonjotnder of ' 'n«ejoes_sery partives.

a.éeV_V"'-Seen wniie entertaining the suit: in the absence of are Triai Court has passed a balanced order by W,,..,i set'eg'eareér:g the interest of BSA by hoiding that the judgment

- ev§»~r§§' éw 2.3 erte decree in eeestiers weuid net: em BSA, it ie ieterestihg te note that eeth the parties have eurchesed the erepert_ie.si*-.ir2 question (the apeeiiants father purchased site Nee} _ the reseendeht purchased site N053 and after.--t'he-:ihiti'etier3 eifu "' the acquisition proceedings. As admittetiiy rsu":3s'eEjt.:_Aeir*;:i:_i purchasers, they are not entitled .t0-.._resisVtr.th'e Viarzre'aje.qt:isi.tioe per se. Their one and only right is teﬂi:h.e:yeVV_vthe'tietermihiatien of the market value of their site;s._."{}Qhe:Vir;-.»'~ee::rJj:<iiA}:i~h_§:e with iaw and receive the COl"T'}penSafAiVC)F¥ theireohft-.. that the site E\ies.1, 2,. 3 armi '_ea.rt'apui;_s'e:rii.3:/ If there is any dispute regarding€.tVhei_44_"e';tteréi;'. land being owned by them, theHsevrhev'ij't2e.s_v_i'te»'tie"§~.,,a_dju'dicated either by filing a sevarate suit takiihe to the Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Acts a_hy9..Q--f4VA:th,e four sites in question are not in the iand =;.Veec:;uireii..Vti-\_gr«theV"_"_v€3eere'rhment for the purpose of BDA, their V".rerhe.dy hes tg..V:Af3e":by way ef fiiing a cerrzprehensive suit for they are the owners of the particular extent of _'Ee_.néiv.VVe'h'e;'er for seeking the reiief of deciaration that the executed in favour of the opposite parties are net V__veii£d.

E4

26. What cennet be iost sight ef is that the seie deed executed in faves?' of the respondent (E><.i'>3) and the eppeheenit-is father (E><.D:7j are ail on the same day. The eppelle3nt*s"i'fat-h'e':.~.__Q" . is the attesting witness to the execution ofthe sa'£e"d"ee'_c§. '(VE><;;'£?3}. "' in favour of the respendent. The appeiient::'ca..Einot._'t'eté3iE§i'Vﬁieényj the existence ef the site Nos, 3 andezi with any 'fete ev:f°s.:;;'ee.ess3. 27, In the factual matrix of was oniy (relied upon to adjtidieaiteé'.t.h'e__i§ovss.'essoéty»rights of the respondent for the doing of vvhieh' fauit with.

The appellant has of his cross-

examination: "o'.'--:::ih:,f.1_eEsite No.3 and 4. I am not in possess.iAon. I have no katha in my name to the site obtained sanctioned plan to site IV'a'rnV:n__otAnaying taxes to site No.3 and 4. I amA'not.c:o«nc;ernec1-t4o"~--si_'te No.3 and 4," These responses cleariy ﬁgshow th'atAVt.§2e e';::tieL!.!a'i}%t'vhas nothing to do with site Nos. 3 and 4, they be¥'eng'*-V_to"'.the respendent, Permanent injunction is, tjhjerefoife', Viriégntiﬁr granted to the respondent in respect of site /1 W7.ivées.:%;ta5ii*i zit' aﬁﬂk E5

28. Thus; not finding any infirmity or iifegaiétgr in the judgment and certain decree passed by the Trio: Court, §.d_Vfer;;§'Eo_e to interfere in the matter' I dismiss this appeal.

29. However, certain c!arificatio_ns»..are 'Eo.'_jbe'§i_ V issued and Certain observations are requi'red::fo" be°r.=1_éd.é;. _ 1*f_j't«h!é'T-i. appofiant or the respondent files a's'*e:oarafé 'émy dispute as to the apportioordent ofVtoéf:f'~:<:ompeosati:Q_r1oimounts and/or to the measurementVorrtho:'.'§:o,d:.." Court or the Reference Court, as ther':ose the claims and counter ciaI_r:1sl.:." ij":.oduéoéndent!y of and unirafiuenced Court for passing the judgmentzira given by this Court for confirming the samtegr _ §So'bji.eot to théVo'b"s"érvatéons made in paragraph No.24; 25 aoé:f_ 2'9A"h'ero}'rxdi§ov.o;_;.th§s appeai is dismissed. No order as to v'tio.s»ts.

sofr 1 114; 2 ~ " .7 D

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court