Karnataka High Court
Sharanappa vs Basavarajappa on 10 April, 2012
' 'j). \ ill•. i
(1
C j J
ihJ ).
9 I ) 1
hI I V fi A
,j
1''
1I
' I 4','JdJ- I.J
V
1) \i. i'Vèf I"! I IN. %.I
\' 'ia
I L S ' N un LSKI ML ) W t i
r41)1j PT 1 Q
T
)%N
usi>i ii; un-' 7NVT\
'NVIA IT "
ljT% 0/s
JT'rI flVIV 'idi '\,j9f
IT
v i&nuic
S)Ic'4A . '
l'lk'cI "TVhdd%XHI S0IS
V TdVIX H? \VS¼ U
cNn c rt :py,
T
fl ]"V VcIdi f'WW'iVS\ t. 0/s
Vdfl-NVNVIS
\43%1170
Vdd 11111 11 9 I.L.Slf "IN SiH,'s. )II
31-IL
JNOSIH
c,tOc'aINcI 40 i\C .01 .41-lI SITu CI.4L\C
\ '-'$1' 1') r Ii VliIifl )'II..)
'MVJN\>1N 41) UI I I) 1JUl11 9113. XI
fQ \A['G.R LISI (A. I! ARC a •
'l's! .Ii.'
S,O ( I M, \Na AC SAR
\GE 32 \ EsirS. 0CC: s.C Rh.
R 0 ' I! LMiI LIGI- RI.
Q. \'I)GIR )ISi "I JH\R
1 (.2.
P L C ( RNA JIANT)RA U(;
S/U K. RFfliA1UI
hbl. So YLARS.
RJ0. UMJERL It) tA!) I.
nrsr. 0' t
LBARGA
RI'SPO" L)L"1S
'fl ',RI N P VIVFKMFI 14. 'i)V fl) R.
SRI R S SIDIIATt PKAR kI) F('
Rlt
SRI. I.JA\ \K( \1.U( \fl't I JR W I
'
his RIA ITLEI) I/S 9b 01 CN
. 4GAIN' 11W
ID; tMIAI A"aD r LLRI F Dl (2
1 9
00b PASSE!) 1% C'
\) 13 2(0 (N IHI FLE CE TIlE (I.'
I Jt'DOE (SRDN.'
LX IR I 1SM'SSINC, filE SI if k(.R I)L
( L\Rf1ON AN')
INJI'N' FION
IIIISRI.i 'tbhI\U( NI )'LI £.. fl.
(0
1118 1 \ lit'
? EThLALRE'I) 11E 1011 )4RG
JUDGMENJ
liii •tj).) aI )1
s Fc t 1 ii ..i' I
' (1f( t .1 cJalPS 'a..
-: .t1jiIt)t(.(rt l
2
t i 1
2J )b. s -
(i ii1 'rJ)niYcgir it )SN ';,'200
)
4
-p
)
1
4
6. The defendants have no right or Intere
st in
the suit property and they never
cultivated the stilt
land. Few days prior to the filing
of the suit. the
defendants tried to cut the thorny bus
hes and sell the
suit land to Andhra persons. Wh
en questioned, the
defendants told that they are the ow
ners of the suit
land. The plaintiffs obtained records
and came to know
the name of one Marthandappa Sb
. Mallappa Agsar
was wrongly entered and he is
no more. The defendants
who are the children of Marthand
appa's brother have
managed to get their names entere
d in the revenue
records. The entries are illegal. Th
e suit land Is not a
tenanted land. The defendants are
trying to knock off
the property. Therefore, the plaint
iffs have prayed for
declaration and permanent inJ unctio
n.
7. The first defendant has filed his
written
statement contending that the def
endants have no right
or inlerest in the suit property. Th
e defendant No.2, at
It a. L . '(J1 ,c1s 'fl' I er
1 I II j
1 j
bus . . p. thr ui1 hind. - tie a t if tix left nda i % 2
js i1. Lal. I he.vf''rs' tit. Iir%' iC( n.lant nas n ed P
dec ter flit li't.
S [he set t'nd rin&'n,1; p1 fdnri ii' vntt't'
statement 'sent idiu.t in a M ulappi Agsar. shi
grui1fthcr 01 tiit dtt L
i i I', I ad s' i' na neiv
Maith i dippi 1 1) rI ii )t'i na. Mrti'andappi
lcd s jcl ss I cdda De.ann4. the tither cii tIi
I 'f ndants tsn it o .nort.
9. alIt suit tfloperfl j% tic t
a1 1'tsta iop4 .
lhe deh iiciara'--. li_n h€bt suect' dccl throuQ i ii
I:t.lie'r ilk "II O''Ot."t% is mt s. in ti i nv A
vlai-th and ipp H% i.'--n l t '
i t titt ii 1 in iN
ii- ,i - 1 1 ) \1 tI;rlipp. ivi
iiti 't 'ti lii ' t. if I1C')t1.(1cijjj
• i I i i c Mi l.q i; ha
. • t I
' a 1 i d
•c $ . i ai u/ui (n(' 'I.
I.
6
possession of Marthandappa was recognised as
protected tenant. The name of Marthandappa has
appeared till 1988-89. After his death. mutation has
been effected In the name of the def
endant& father and
thereafter, the name of first defend
ant has been entered
and the defendants have become the
owners of the suit
property. The plaintiffs have no rig
ht, title or Interest in
the suit property. The defendants are In lawful
possession. Therefore. the second defendant
has
prayed to dismiss the suit.
10. The trial Court has framed the
following
issues:
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they
are
owners of suit land?
2. Whether plaintiffs prove their law
ful
possession over suit land?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove that ent
ry In
the name of Marthandappa in
revcnue
records Is illegal?
7
4. Is there no cause of action
for the stilt?
5. Is the Court fees paid inad
equate?
6. Is the suit time barred?
7. Is the stilt not maintainable?
8. To what order or decree?
11. The trial Court has answere
d issue Nos. 1 to
7 In the negative and cons
equently has dismissed th
e
suit.
12. Therefore. this appeal.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the Impu
gned Judgment and decre
e
cannot be sustained in law
. He also submitted that th
e
trial Court has failed to co
nsider the evidence on rec
ord
in proper prospective. Fu
rther he submitted that
the
evidence on record clearly
show that the plaintiffs are
the owners of the suit pro
perty and therefore. the
trial
Court was not justified in
dismissing the suit. 1-fe als
o
submitted that the appe
llants have filed IA.No.
1/2007
'4
I •r itljllii t
hil
"j j,J U i j • ip
h i4
ll(nni i't
(ji.art tort ibuitticci tint tlic iniput'lit t' judcnwiia and
tin ft ''dill £7 ii ill' !np iii ia
I fhei t is io i cpreseutation t' I) 'Ii ill r I II
t t%,))l1 nt
la Ihe I iii cl e,'i a ',ei hr (he "HI r 'sponciei'
sjabmjig'-d that Lift nnpuznicd judginti t a c. denee o
1 e
riot all br inttrtèie i e. I ils uhmitad th tue
.. til C nan I or pa ojwr consult raik r t I tli ii t i 'al
t d 1 a iLl ti disrnisse.i ti-ic suit and
therefoic the
impu2ncd idg ieii u I doc
it' 'ec a 01 ' iii o'
ts)tcaIfhlLnl i"u In
t ther aba atied v)
a
1 t L
)
t ( ivI"a
[roiL i'u Ia' ' iit11t s I C ICE )[(t ha i_lit
i.,I iii. a v'rc 9': 1
r'- ( • tar i i Li '
I a i ss rt
1 1. 1 1 •n a - 'ha' h I it j ) -- I)
4. 1" ', 1' 1 1 cuLt' t1
T I Ii 'ii ..T,c f% •b
• lit
4 -- I ( I" ItO e ti' 1114.1' "' 'I I. ' !21flt I
'1•,1
•4 £,
t C •'Ii ti
9
16. The learned cotinsel fo
r the third respondent
submitted that he adop
ts the arguments of th
e learned
counsel for the second
respondent.
17. 1 have carefully consid
ered the submissions
made by the learned co
unsel for the parties.
18. The point that arise fo
r my consideration is:
Whether the Impugned
judgment arid
decree calls for interfere
nce?
19. It is relevant to no
te. the suit is for
declaration and perm
anent injunction. The plaintiffs
contend that the su
it property is their
ancestral
property and they are
the owners of the suit pr
operty.
20. The second defe
ndant contends that th
e stilt
property Is their ancest
ral property.
21. The plaintiffs have
examined PWs. 1 to 3
and
Exs.Pl to P7 have been
marked.
L
22 '1 lit. de'frndant'. b i.e naini wd 1Y 1 an I ..
LIG '. .,I It U 2)iii . I ' i nink:'].
2c 11" hiid i1 P 'fl the i 1
lai
t l%
iit to 01 Oi. iii it
1 1' i.lis(lthc%1it wxr and Issiitl
WH% liii it at (''siflil pn)peit. PWs I u 3 hai.t
cAp s d s tpcr i t, It ik i trmtnts. Exs P1 and
Dli are Khaqri Pahani cxlnw rh.v s1ut
.
he i time
U Sh i ,i i S . 3. si runia is Paud4r mat
Marthaiidappa S'o. M ilappa At,'ar as Hid alidai
1 In
c )I imi \ S 14 ci I ( it S Sflfl4fl liii lh( ani i.as
wtted aid Manhcind.ippa LbSCI . ht tcn ni tad I c
I 1 it 1 n 1 ' ci '.,f FXP2 i ii.
: eitificai e I by tiff 7h'I dr. \ idur I - 1 H I at
S\7ic in. , )4itt '1
1.1,1:1 I's1 ilbill'MI 't'vipr'fi Itflv r'. 9-
it '-lr cIii\iQ I i ii'\ 'i'n'nps
'(3 .4'uIIt'ji ci L4 cL1 Ill I 1J Ii ' 1 £ (1 1 fl c C
i' i' it t't-t I
--_Ilg,i.. I' still
I''
.' •i't (1 . Jij . I i
I'
lit Jb
4 I 1
--iIj 1 • -- h1tIa h,it' JfI(' (1
''
fl 19$, tt4 [; P4 di R1(
.
''cu ict for lie
%s 69 till I ) : a i i .P is th RI eti "1 'Ui
iii I. P 71 nI. I '76 liii '1 Slit 01 4'itItii Iip?i
1. . Sk.T ..' • c.l.'mn N fl at d 12. Ii' T'• ) 1
'.
L
r ii - if M.irih.uidappa ha' bcen oun
de 1 '11 ii I iii
i amc at Dükla Dc' ann i S/v Mall.. ppa l s r ii
shon. Ti al'iipn No 12. tN nan (1D ( c. I nna
and MalIa,.. i i.e . sC' on'] jief' iJ,uu a a-' lx (fl
%l-,n •1.
I '.Pi j the hI etraer t r the ycar 2004 Ga lh€
iuiflIt"s Millappi S/( I.) ;d(lcl l)evanna 1
u'
4a' iattJappt' S 't'. i)n40. l)ean ni ha Ixcn shc.'t.
lit tiliitri i Ni' C Iii. in. 'pneyl '. c dn' r. I Ji t •i'
;Iair1i'I-, '_'i" th'i' %I i'tliat'J t 4) 1 14 l icah,i
ìr'd h' '
b
1 '' LaI''i Hit a tb' liii I ftnr
't•
P 1 11•
. Vtt1J' iii 'i 1(41 1 i iii 1 . I...'
i iii lii . ti filth 1' • 1 1
fl 1 'tsr iI"•I ).,Iit )
'.hcvin F\%.P] to P" t1 1 (4 "lt)' ti.J h
1. iL'1aitals' (at tf'i•J) 'ivt-u•i-- 'ti' ti'c i)llcvs iii ilit' tut prop r s 21 L'liflats WI U P 4 1)i t) ' t i
1.d ii '3 1 1 'lfi4bt thhibt% i P P1 1 3 p inc P F hIlts 1) 1 1)15 ijid D 6 'h tin in in' ' larat inn hit (L in the i)t'tilioIli r' fan fly h 'Inn (Ia T aid Ii ihitnal \t a i fl c r Sv No ' o Lingi ii i1iage fleas' riiw 14 t'ri. , aid 3 1 4untt, Ii L fbi hi cli included 'L" d' ci ii' i t' p di ct.d ly hit- (IC tcnd 1il' I r'y 'J ni it h p np'rn iia' p se wcI Lw Ma Mi dappa tt r h.'-- dt€'ti ilk 1) C t h s ((F I •) J'ud T)' t .1 jo t the 1i'er c.i die ithflcki mi in I I a,,cI 'i!cttL'ftflr, th 4 l(' t ft)' "is t I ) Pit pifl lilis I • tu' 1
- i-j'jt• ci mv 't'u 0 '1(' iFat I t' eli h i4'it'l r ii i rl.nitlwir t I IC' i(!' t' I - Ii ' K_- C • l •% 1 1 i ' B i ijt; r i ii.-- •t Ii • c. ''.' il' i iU ' • ' Ii - p1 -1 ' • 's . •.t 1 ,t '.1. t fle '.,'j( ; t '. I 13 documents produced by the defendants clea rly show that Marthandappa w as in possession and thereafter.
the property has com e to the defendants 1 and 2 and their lather. Therefor e. in my considered view, the impugned Judgment and Decree does no t call for interference.
25.The appellants have filed l.A. 1/07 for addi tional evidence. Additional evidence cannot be al lowed as a matter of course.
The documents soug ht to be produced are pahani fo r the year 1923 and ge nealogy of the plaintiffs' family.
These documents were available at the time of trial. Apa rt from this, the docum ents sought to be produced will no t help the plaintiffs in any way to prove their title or the title of their ancestors.
Therefore, l.A. 1/07 is rejected.
Accordingly, the appe al is dismissed. No onlttas to costs.
SI JUDGE