Smt Siriyala vs B N Ramesh on 17 February, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 19]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Siriyala vs B N Ramesh on 17 February, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2010 (2) AIR KAR R 951, AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 344 (KAR.)

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA?\%Gr"_\.i_,.()Ri€ DATED THIS THE; §'?"'i)x>\Y or H%;i3RUAR}f BEFORE:

THE. HON' BLE MR. JUSTECE AND REGULAR SECOND APPEAL ;\*A.%2A293 ();%'2.()(;()'(mg"AV A BETWEEN:

1(a) Smt.SirEyala Wife of Late Shamilai, _ Aged about 62 yams, _ ' l(b,} Sri P1~a1k;3.§E3.Sif . " .._V S011 ofLane5Sha.:€'EiVi£1i."'-. . ;

Aged abV_<_)%u_L 4'0._ye£::3:§_, _ , " "

Both are re._sidi :T1gV;1;V_ }%pa1tt<,¢;iTcv:'3i No. R.E.6lZ«Pu1fvae'i_v':silt.' "

Ma1:'athhaI!.i, » "

Banga11_()re--3'7~. ' I C ) .ya1".~S.

-A -Dmghie?0f"Sha11Iiia-zVI;'{anai ', ' \N'é'feV 0 E7V_B'a*a'h.:;ri'L:d_c V A n :1 nd. '-- A gal :1m)fu; 3 %§'}%@:an's.

Rcs'i.déa3g ai~V'S_!n'*:3wst3ua'y I\/1.2%. U:2i{cd«-Stziics.

A id) P1'2;:de.ep.S, Sun of igilstﬁ Shaintéiai.

.4\géd.a1b<>L1135' Ix) Rcsidi11g an Apu:'1m<:.1aI No.R.i:L.7(_)4.

Purva1'ivi1'i;1.

M aruihlmlli, Ba:1ga10rc--37.

1:2) PratE1iba.S. Datugh1e1'{')fL£11e ShanliEaE.

Wife: <__>fR;1njiIh., Aged about 3! yc'.1:~.~;, 1 Residing at Apzimlleni N0.R.F. 105.

Purvari\-'i:'i:.1, .

Mzimthhzllli, Ba111ga1Eorew37.

ID P1'dSl1an{h.S. Son of Slumtilal, Aged about 30 years. V '- _ v_ ¢ Residing ai Apz};r1&:«1e"_r:--t NQ.R§D;5()51 .. _ Pu:'V:1:'Evi:"ia1,_<.. v w '« Ma:1~;;Ih§iVz':'lM'!'ViT; '' ' = Bang:-110afe--37_ V APPELLANTS (Cause ma; is ;11n'c:.:_1_dA:.ﬁ'\/iL$§C(iu1"t o;~d§:- dated: 10. 1 l2()()8) (B y $3';-n--i . R. 1v..'4I"'>-.r-..i%A: ; 'A L1wS;:a11;:) S<m__of N a_ gaip1;;.>;IJ.

Aged' :.1b(-->;:i #15 year:~;, «. ,. ~Cha1'Ie:'c-,d_ Accoulltant, V' "j.RtSi:i_-.ing"at K.R.Puram.

T T " Sam_p_i.--ge Ruad.

H.'}SS2.-1l1~573 ZOE, RESP()NDENT Sh:'i.Ash0i«; H_;u'11a1hu11i and Assmsiatcas) 4";

This Regulm Second Appeal is filed under ill.j'(lU pf' the Code of Civil PI'0Ct3dLlI'6, 1908., ugaittst theejludgeiirzetttfzthdv, decree dated: 7. l(}.?,()()5 passed in RA.No.73/2()(l5=.g)h=.t:he_ é'ile"tti" the /\ddlIl()I]£il Sessions Judge and PresitligtgT_Of'fiCe;:;4 l"9'itst.]TrlacE<f COU1'{~lIi. Hussein. allowing the ztppeail...tthcll'--ttset't'iit.g"wV2t'::t§'tie:.,tl1e judgment and decree dated: 3.8.2(:}{)3l'p£-tS--$_ed in '(').,S';l\lt3.'~'i;l, E'/U195 on the file of the Principal C'iv.i_l Judge l'{.|t1iil:s.')i*" i.Diy_iVs;i().3t1) JMFCJI Court. Hatssan and This Regular Se<lo.ttd Aippealljé hiet-vjittg beienlil heard and reserved on 10.02.2010"as*tld.,et)mVi,h:g "oil ..f()1<. j3I'Oﬁ()UI1C€fI1€F}{ of Judgment this day, the Ct)urt'i~deliikeréd l:l"1€.l'1{l'()i_il(_)Wl£1g2 ~ A 1UDGMENTy' Fl.--'eard il.'t)"a£I_»1llS'el lt't);f"Ehe 'patties. «my 7 "lie p:_ti'ti'c.$ 7.tt'e* tfel}-%:1":'ed to by their l'LlE}l< bettwe the trial c0t1t:t.§tf'()r the sztkeﬂf Lf_();tvenierice. ' .,VI5..._¢'Fhe..1'é£'ct:_s of the case are as follows:

l"i'I'ltei 'titjrjesiettt atppellttrtt was the defettdtmt in 3 Suit for ',permtth~ent';.injunction, tiled by the tfespondent herein, restraining i"«tlte_de"§'e1tdattt H0111 intez't"erin2_z_ with the suit property which was $1 u vtteztztt site.

3 The suit property was described in the plain: as measuring E10 x 491/2 feet situated in survey t'\E0.67/IAA be2:rviz*tg':"'t§hataa N02607 of ChikE<t1k(')i}dz1g()E:.i, HLISSLID. The pit1it1t'§i_tT have purchased the pr0pe.rty under t1_§ai_:: deed"'d'a--:te:iV"2f3;3_1989'. ztnd that the Khata in respect of the p::'0pet'_tyA~M18'~tt'éit'1$I'e«t::'ed~.§h7his name and that he was at inst' ._r(J'>.e1"t tax t'egut;1t'i'vV;"'{'tVVwas the P - 9 pt' 3/ he e ptaintiffs complaint that the det'en€Z:iht. t1'yih;gvt--:) i.h'te1'tere with the property by putting; t:Vdp_e_'zt"5-iedtce gm-.V't»he'--.$t1it property and therefore, had b_.€i3't1_C'_()l']Sifélittﬂfitofitﬁxttlﬁi Sttfit. The dé§fen_.d';a>htV.e'ntet'edj2-1;f)'p.e;a--rai:,ee' in the suit and denied the titte ofh*the'-- i)i£~ltltiitiwgt/,,,§tti€,f'v'C--£AtttEt'3!liC1C(J that there w';t.s' no property which cttutddahdev.ic1er:tif'ieti'A2t"S' the suit schedule property. On the 'V._t)thet9':'«:.h;t_htE,__ the V"'de-t7en*dant described two properties survey _N=0.tT)"}'v/ti'E3._{1n.d*1C in his written statement under scheduie 'A' and Sc11er1ttie_.'tV'B', respectiveiy. It was contended that one V'-»B.T.TEt'initﬁta-appzt had sotd scheduie A property, mentioned in the _V.-3/':r'%t.te_tri statement, to one Stzsheeltmithu, who in turn had said it to = ..t,>;'1Ve S11a\»v~Sumz-umati _ fmm whom the det"end.;mt had pLtrcE'msed .3 (3 The trial court ft't1med the foilowing issues:

(E) Whether the pl;::itttiE't' proves that he is-f"Et€'f'=lTéi'w4f'L:f p0ssessit)n of the suit stzhedule p:'t)pet't},-*3: (2) Whether the pfa'mtiff ft:rthet"'pt'nvegthztt tie'fE;:1ti::--:its :2'l'_¥'€ b iilegalfy making an £Et[€t11pI4i'Q_ ;5u_t~up I'en:';i'r:g "in property as aileged'?

(3) Whether the';:p'}ttinti_'f't' wt§;;a:.tttt-teed forhthe relief of permanent injut1VcVtj:t)t.1V 213 ght ---

(4) t>t"tit:'1"_Vt,stfvtleetee'? = h' The t1'iéiE' the-issues against the plaintiff and dismissetfthe' suit'. h' », "

_Et1 an zthpettﬁ vbythe.phlihttiﬁ. the first appeflate Court tlmned "the foﬁ1t)txfiAt1g"h'p<)it1ts 't't5't9"c()11sideration. V"E-Ni?W,.vV§'fhCI%'l€|' the pfztintiff prm-*e-.<; that he is in p0s.'~;es.<;i0:a of the piaint schedule .. pmpez"ty'?

6 !\.} Whether the plttihtiff proves that defendanVt~=_ has illegally ir1terfe1'ed by putting; up é1!'(')URCl the plttillt schedule property 1- V interfering with the pos.<;e:ssio11....tjiiu « plaintiff'? l_ V 1 A V

3. Whether the pittintiff is lfo;~ 7tiv1_€.Are.lie.f"' V ()fp€1'iT]3f16ﬂ{lt1jLl{1t5Ilt5'I'1_l? A. _ Al

4. Where it is !1.$CI'3SSElI'y__ll(:)~t)6'i?[i}it the'«zip_peVlVVllitnt to adduee exgitief t~f,3_C prayed '?

5. Whether the by the}. bel()\_>.=l trailing for inlte'i'«fe rentje lb'y_':.l_'1is.eo;it'tf?" ' The f'irlSt'tti:ppelllttte t;o'ttrt having reversed the findings of the trial cou1't,°t.hi1.~:; _«'.r1plp€_al"i.S"l"'l_l6d.l'T'hiS court has frztmed the following substztgntial qLrel;ti»o_1_1S" of laiw while admitting the appeal. :..%'.'::Whethei" the lower Appellate Court was in grant.ed at decree for permanent _ .ll_inj=uihcti()ra only on the basis of the sale ~ deed. tax paid receipt, khata endorsement, when the trial court had recorded at finding At the time offi:'1z1E hc:aring:., the sttbst-untiat "amt-3stVéto1'1?' ot'"}aTw' 7 that the plaintiff' has not estublishcid his title-'_=""

was reframed as under and the11c:xt"ihtE_t)wi1'1g"zgddhiithipntti substantia} questions of law tvctre fra:n*e,d*0n wthvft}1.Vthé c}::)1,in>;e have z1dd1'esse.d zlrguntents:

" i) Whethe1'4"thé £:ippT't:', lQ1-(»}:t.€;ﬁ(;'{)Ll!"{ could !1z1v¢4.:V'g_;fant:§d V-f'c.;ettV'V' permanent nj in y1(5e_,1.1' of thchpEVati'nVtit't'~ when the the identity of the $A11it[.5'Vprt);§§z:t*t3!¢Zwhs disputed by the defendant who (3]E'iivi"¥"13_d i't::r..--£itIe '?

ii) W,hethe1'Vthe suit for bare. injunction could pt*<)ceédéd with in the face 03°11 serious regarding title'? What is the general A 7p1fi.1§i:ip1e appiicable to the case on hand'?

'I' iii) Whether the fi:'.<;t. zzppeilate court 112-Ed failed in its f'un<;iion in not fttmiing, appmpriate points for consideration in deciding the appeal '?"

1 n 9 The cotiiisel for the ttppellttm contends that in theiwitlge of the defendant hztving raised a serious dispute as to t.h_eii't'>::v§éij's;--.til'?-.t_he_ title of the plaintiff. 11:; there was ngWpei~t>pe:t3t;";m,;_i;;;i,5;,3<--E0 ./_;1gg'. vendor which tzouitl be conveyed unde':.'&tl1:ei_is:iile deet'i,_imtle-if'"whis;ih the plztintiffulaémed title. And in._tilte_l'ace"0.f ex/icieh¢"eit1'Lldtijeed to establish that the very pm~pe:"ty the father of the plaiittiffs vendor ttii were ultimately pLll'Cl'lL1St3d by sale cleedsf, and those 'described in the written statteaneljt B thereto, are the very prt>pei"tiesi'whieh'w_t$uld- the sowalled suit schedule p1'0pe;;t.'y' «the very eﬁitisteitce and identity of which was seriously t}ii.spt1ited_ié§_i:_is~._eontendecl that the first appe.llate court was not justifietl in "prt_m%,e'dt:1g to reverse the 'jiiiiglﬁﬁlll of the trial court 'V and tles;:"e'eaii1g the wit" for pe.:'mt-tne1'1t in_}unc1i0n in f".1vou:' of the "ti;ept;tn--it;.4§1*.

3 findings while negating at well eonsidereci judgmem which WL1S rendered in 11CC0l'(l1i11C€ with settled principles of l;1w,..'Re:'l'i--21m:e is placed on the following <;feeis;ions as reggarcls the scope c)f'g";er.'5V'ce:"of:4 the appellate court and the duty t:<:£$'t'--on i;lie_..c:oi.-117*: l(f)w:lfI'2llZ(1€l app1'op:'iate points for <;on.<,ide1':;ttion.

(Cl) Kfzartmlai Vs. /»l.f"J'?1'I?(I[.'9c'Z?f:_..gO€.l_'f('2»} "A (1-2; G. 5. Part; Vs'. Bllﬁ"il?:gj£:5_,..1lV{:1LJVf66 (.1: ; C.'/'2(m'1.a4Wig-'t1/t"(t:"V.t'l.lRc.llI1t.;:Nl:2_'§.'gtko'. :1.l:;R /988 KAR /902.

The that the appeal be allowed and the soit'--d'ismi'ss:le'd.,ll Per eontng, tlE:e'lL=oe-n,§e»el for the zfespondent seeks to justify the 'jul;ig_l;zei1iiez1t' oI'*--..the first eppellztte Court. It is sought to be polnted t.>vu'E.ti'1.e_l"";ts_rightly held by the first appellate Court. the suit was ('me t"<ii"lia.i*(%i' injunction * There \>ve:s no warntnt. to atcldress the lgtitle of the};)a1'ties. This was especially so when the identity of the "«ilpi"c)pei't.ies was completely different as is plainly evident ~» the § piztintiff was ehtii1'iit1g as the owi1ez' of p1'ope1*ty in Survey No.67/1 A] A wfierezts the deteiidzmt was czlaiming titieta.)_p.i_jEi;)et'ty in 67/18 and 67/EC. it is this gi:.=t1'ir1g eiI'cu:n:~}t:ti1cie"-thattti'7h;ts,> prompted the firfst appellate court to address the width_i_i*eg:t_;'di' to the question of lawful ;:x)ssessi<.>ni°"as ibeiiiig the t;it1i_y "2ie'ie.x?'t1~n_t issue in deciding the suit. Anti_iitheret'<)tet t}1eji'C(iunise'l'would submit that the appeal be d.i.sm.issAed'. " if:

In the above__1'1tcts 8_.J.1r_.i.,Ci'tfCUE1jt»{21EiC'CSii¥'E.i.VE':3'iiset3t] that the first i1PI3'3"€11€ 000171ix.,h3€§"r1_egatedithe _CL¥;%'F:ii(ii1Ciiiitiiii1t3 defendant and his seriotis :Veha!leirt'ge_,t<3 the .tit'ie {if the plaintiff and his vendor and even the "veryexisteiiee i_dF.__tite'iipl:1iiit schedule property, on the gt"()tin;;i "thttt the"»stti't"iwats not one for at deelztmticiii of titie and the"defendant not having challenged the pletintifl' in the e0_tiit';;.e; ('ii)'i"i_"I_i--'§_ 't§;.1*'<iss~e.><:.1111ination. as i"ega11'ds the claim of the

-V defend.>'1.nt'.at!iait what is shown as the plaint schedule property ii..f_e.e:tti:ti«--1sy fe.t'ms pzlrt of the Schedule A and 8 properties described ' ittthe written statement. This reasoning of the first atppeliate court 5 requires to be examined in the light of rsettled prineiplex; eé'.__lziw as pei'taining to the 'i1ze£..~; and ci1'eL1ii1st;mees of the ease. V In the case ofmzczrliiilcz S'zic!fzn/<ci_r_,.,iSepia;the" (5_i:.ifi hgiisl' ~ addressed the scope of 21 suit for ;31"()h"ibéIe'_i_*y'~inji1'riei'E:)i1 i«'elv:§'ri;_ig--ii) immovable prope:'ty and haS ."e>gpluiViiegigleneral' principles in this regard as .f0llow;s":" » 2 "I l. The genereli a mere suit for pern).;i11e_nt i::1jli1liieti§)i1_:wi:i»E--lie; a«Vi:iléill\vl1e11 it is neeessary_ fee 1:-iieelliafiititin and/or p()ssessier} eeiisequential relief, are well :7';~"v'--e iiiey rei'ei*"tI')' {hem brieﬂy. l i.l)l.Whei'e=u {liéilllili}i:'i.S:ilVl'i~ .:l:iiw.i'i*1l or peaceful possession of :1 prepeVi'it'y ;1lTC,i i':~:.iicli1...-':p()ssessi<)1i is imei'l'ei'eLi or ..ficihreaieziecilihy. <.iel'e11dzii1t, it suit 15;" an injunciioii will lie. A ;3er.s0ii has :1 right {O protect his 'Vl}?<,liiS.£ii;Sl'i:)E1_ilg£ill1SE any person wlie d()(:S not prove a seeking: :1 ]3l'0i':li)il0l'_\__-" injuneiism. But :1 {>..ei'$g)n.lli.ii wroiigful pass"-ession is not enlitlecl to an iiijtmetioii agziinsi the rightful owner.

ll * E'vV'il§3E't' the iiile of the plaimill is; not disputed. bu: he is mi in p()S};C:~;SE()l1. his remedy is to like a suii for g l4.

16 with appurtenant lanai. tliere niay not be much diiliculty ._ in establishing possession. The plaiitiiii may p1'oyj.e7i.. ii physical or latwlul possession. either of himseii' him through his tlimily members or tigcntis ore:

lessees/licensees. Even in t"espect_.o.l'__tt structures, as for example 2-tn=__ 1ai'§.?f;i7i(IA.iJ:'i[LlI','cii' iv':-'lild;V:"'t--., possession nia_v be establisheti withAi'eicreiicc,3to the actual use and cultivation. The--v.qu'e,st'i(>n oﬂtitlieliiot, in" issue in such a suit, tliough iiV_in:1:yi;1ri's;e illcidiei-"H.L1Aliy..'bf collttterally.

But what if{'th,§_:. mopciity :3i \"z1c':t.Il[ sitc,_. wliich is not pliysicttlly_p3g)ss e.u,.Vu3;.edUr.)u1" en_ioyr:d'? ltiisuch cases the .4;

principle t--ifiéit.i ptissession'i'oi'lows'title. ll' two persons claiin to l)'e§in }')()'."%£,'§t').';S4tt")i*J_()f ttvztcaatt site, one who is Etbiﬁiiili.) es_tahEi.sh'«t:'i't~l.e;ithei*e!;o,Will be considered to be in possessiic-n.ii as against" person who is not able to cstiaiblish title..__VThis means tlizit even though a suit i'1t-'elati=tiig_: ttm vacant site is for a mere in_iunct'ion and the Tisst1e'~,isl ..o'r:.e of possession, it will be necessary to C'Kt1l]1iliCi~i¥t:1Li.,:d€[C:'llliHG the title as at pre-lude for tlecitiing the dejtiieposscssititi. in such d Sl1iItli.l()il. where the title A is Ci€'3'El:'s and simple, the court may venture a decision on V. _bthi"e; issue of title, so to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue o" title involves complicated or are several decisions taking ti similar VlCW that in at suit lei' ii1junetit">n. the question of title does not zarise t'>r;'" would arise only iiieitieniailly or eellziteruily. :ii_i"ti--i__"'~«.' tlierelbre u subsetiuent suit for L'lCCl€'1I'L1[lt)l1 oi' tiiie.~iyt)ul'd.. i not be barred. On the other htmd, in S'tiilnc.~/'rc'ti-'11.: .flv.ii'l'f3'(.v(l"L-3,? Nurciycii-tctn Nair, AIR I994 SC this Court observed that 2: finding 21%;. teﬁtiiile given' an " l ea-iriier injurietion suit, can ti-_t'3e'r=;ite. tisires jLVl(lli'L'i}_.-l1£1'n:lt":~v.21" subsequent suit for ClCCl3.I'El[lOl]lléilinllile. Thlis--x5i:is':t>n the premises that in S0ii1€~.."i~§uiI_«Sl.Hltil"i~:'l'1ftv}t'ifi<2'IlC)11 at finding on possession létfinding en the issue oi" titie._ ii eet;i'l'ti* sti'i<il_7tht1tllthe? isstie of title directly zuid suisstgtiitiztillyi i'._ei*lif0'n:siderati()ii; and when the put in issue, in 21 subsequeritl parties, the decision in the earlie--r suit may operate as res jutiiea-it;-1. This Court 0lbSC'i'\}'.'C(lAI'-V Shiii Suiétlﬂlilt-1'l"£11] further contended that the it i'*einetiytt§i"iihjunctien is an equitable reliei' and in equity hthe deelti'--iite:=lloi' res judieata cannot be extended to a '.dCC1':3lC ef""ti t.t()U§"i of limited peetmuiry _iurisclieti0ii. We j l"ll}(f'v1_1(i) twee in the contention. It is settled law that in 21 , suit for injunction when title is iii issue for the purpose of granting injtinetioit, the issue direetiy and suhstziiitialiy zirises in that suit between the parties. § recorded in a suit for in_§unetioit simplieiter. in the absence of pleadings and issue relating to title. it is clear that the case on hand is one as i_s§'_Weo'nte-xitpiiated under paragraph 14 of the above judgeineitt off"the--.apeiX».eoit:1't.. lit this view of the matter, the first appellate has fa_i'ledi to-.fd'i1liow the above established pl'lf1Clpil€_v_iilt1V_addilkigsiflgi{hé"._:(i'ii§vpi1:EC and therefore, the first and the see.ottd. $1158'-»Fr._£lf1tl'c-iii'C;t1£:?S.tl:t)!]S of law would have to be answeredﬂn oh the basis of the above said g.;en:eral.._pt'ineiplei I tisotei" a.s-ithe.ithi.t'd'isu'.tJstar1.t,i--al 'qu'estio1i of law is concerned, a perusal of the'iiVj'urJ:lgerner1.t"~-of'the trial court shows that it has properly tliea._ltilw_itli' t_lie'.i)i'*a.lii'and documentary evidence adduced by A_ theV_»pa.rties in deeiidi.n,g__thve issues on which the parties went to trial. VT.hoaghv.the;'pla'intift"s title and that of his vendor well the identity ot"ith.e:tbr()pe.rty having been disputed by the defendant »- ﬁthe pla_i_nit1-Lff did not produce any documents in support of his " .Aver1di;'-r" title. The first appellate court has, summarily, reversed V. .._the tindirtg on the footing that the trial court was in error in 3 we '79 addressing the titie of the parties in a suit for bill'? irijtmction. The appellate court l1as}ui'isdiction to reverse or affirm {he.fiin<ji1i?.gs of {he trial court. A first appeal is a valuzzble right or? unless restric{ed by law, {he whole.....c%.ase rehearing on both questions of fact aiitd lé_A_\X/1 I The jiuclngmevrir«oiiitihe first appellate court must, thLere_.l1):"e,".rei'lec{.:itsiieonscious application of mind andr';e.cord,{fine}.i_hgs*suppo1'tedA reasons on all the issues arising and on the Co'rite1itions_'V{p{u3gf<)rth. The task of an appellate C:J';')l.'I'1"c7.,tl"i'fl1'l'iE}lHg the "f.ind--iiIrgs___ofE' the trial court is an easier' one. 1' _ "lfhes a1:J§3ell;i'te.'fCourt agneeiiig with the view of the trial court 'need inot-»1'estoa{es.rA{'{'i=e effect of {he evidence or reiterate the reasoiis.._4_given._by_ trial court; expression of general agif_é:e1nent withArea.s_o_ns given by the court, would ordinarily tsufiice. "c_"LSf_é{«?.,"4"*Gir':jan(1:2c2'ir2.i l)c»w' V. Brjerzdra Ncmziri CT/20t.zcJhczry, Ai1.¥§' i 967' Sﬁ:i}24 ).

first appeilate Court is a final <:ourt of facts: pure ' -fi'n-d.i.ngs of fact remain immune from challenge before the High Q

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court