Karnataka High Court
Sri Basavanagaiah vs Sri Rangaiah on 19 November, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
ie te 4 ae Ley STLA Fi AE BETWEEN 2 2 PR y PRPELLANT A Zz eee en a. oe F # ' UNL 7 a ee oe CRC o DECKEE O38 =
rata, Bi, ies oy wy q at Ha es feet hy oa Jeph aj Bohed Cb mG 2D pee Ee re a _ Spence vi eye ek PES CONONG GR BOR UP THIS APPEAL CO THE phy yee ete eo, eee fyrae e THIS TOA THE age eESTT RE oS gf OL oR pitas } 48 per their Jacl wae the claintudy in a suit fer . iis his case that the suit premerty was der the Land Grant Rules, 1969, and 1 atider leis lane il SE 2h thereat ter the & he hes
2. Theresfter 'y Pa ight my atm Fy ohn " 2 yf proceeding Mee if iis _ iivietion ¢ & = = Wi2 ULL property and US poRsession of 1 OBEN mf comiion competent authority from LBS oak LPG © these proceedings, the plamti®, ¥ 34 SYi hi: EE free.
time to ¥ nad however, Tie defendant weve urmier which he d posseseier.. ad ae re ergs aang oes =s co e HOUS possession for -- Sri gles contended that he _ Aa TT) had Gled an ar eae - on 4% Peay go, bom, oe Hs SLLDOVe TOT GI erulorged by the Panchayat ta' Was indeed ng Prarued igeues held "4 Whe des? PS baa were HS the same. The teal Court. @giabliah that the land Was grentedd ty ok wee x ms ch laced rengebi tan & See EE CEPTe ea le Ory fa allenged by way of an appeal, the " iricder Grder 4] . g fp ee Pee fe cm tend crypto ' sof = Bile 27 0f CPC seeking to produce the original grant died to produce before the tial Court. The Lower Appellate Court, however, . fejected the application on the ground that the grant certificate was the besie for the sult and ought to have plaintil wae seeking to produce the same at the stage of Be ; . : a eee aad mee =. ae " ont : i es a"
AM appeal, Ube same weulkl mot be if consonance wit Cwelesx 424 Tle OF af mor aecoedineky lerterd ghee Greer 41 Rule 27 af CPC aml accordingly resected the % nA fh af tlum .Tearleyemecyt @ Decree of the trial BAITS BY BDIPIMIGG Lie uw Le CELESTE ae LAr Se ia ee cS = Court. [tis tue, which is sought to be challenged in vhe oresert second apocal.
£ BOE
5 The legrrec Cry alt th lant i ~ "The learned Counsel for the 2p pellant would gulbmut that tere wae ah infiraaity an the planta? not Raving produ ioe the originel grant certificate at the stage of tral. "Howe ver, the «ame baving been sought to he produced befors the Lower Appellate Court on the i he 5 iterate rustic and he iootmmg that the pleimtil wae an i had ituieed misplaced the original certificate ard could 'mot.even sa ay. as is whether the grant has been made by an eg a x a + PS wurramm om os E :
the Tahsilder oor the Deputy Commissioner, which mo warranted On Grmerkiment to the plait in this regard, It . : is only on & sustained ellert that the original could be "traced. The Lower Appellate Court having rejected the
- application off-hand haa resulted in a miscarriage of justice. If the grant certificate is accepted, the plaintiffs ttle is mmde out insofar as the land in question is ca concerned. Though it wae the factum of continous 3 pessesdion and mulivation why Bin ee Lecpenes _ A thet Heixesee Tacs maw den tebe ete fOP (Mare WpUTictici] @ric thet navirug been sete Wished the. Bo ee FEM OE te Hee pleintifs case atood fortified with the original grant 2 ge hos hus ant Zap ane pepe : . Po ao wep ie teh cerlincate Gel placed on record, "Hence, he. would acugnt to. be made #ubmut that compared _ 4 . te ae gw .
SteOc: Of & ern out by the cdefermiant,- we a iourdation insofar as his chain to and 3 COniriucuse culity mation. of othe" guth. property was concerned, ® . Ot the other hand, the learned Counsel for defendant, is oye _ Begin, Eee egos wk 3 yes ¢ 4 2 Karnataka Land Records of Righte Rules, 1961, which . Would disclose that it ia the Village Accountant, who prepares the oreliminary record ard the same after *, the same would be certified and issued by the Village officers. The RTC Pl 2 ad a me EO . an bey ben ee de -- Leuhes Lee macd <8 - :
SRUTAC. 1 TAVOUL Of LG PuRETYUUD i@ Ceriainily issued. ey 4 eee --
ae 5 the Village Accountant, whereas the RT:
oxtracts are.
"0 bad Ese produced by the defendant, which is. issued by the % Ped Secretary, Gollarahatn Vilage Pancheyath, who BOE | | tetera of regulars. ation" at his arieuitho: rigea occupation. The Panichay: at res of the defendant, onty indicated that there may have , been a recommendation by the panchayat, which by ite elf would, not 'corer amy rignt. Therefore, H is submitted 1 hat the Lower Appellate Court cought to have pocepted the application se¢king to produce the grant certificate, The plaints euit ought to be decreed as thé trial Court had dismissed the suit only on the grouse that the plamtil has failed to produce the Original grarit certificate, Wher that lacuna ia filled up, lacn rere need cleark evidence the ths mMigterial documents produced clearly evidence the Sud?
Sede @8S% yn re é Eos tae Ba eyE eS zt Ee re rs PUAN Ss COMMous et JOY EEGIL Grid ae Fa ieee ed oy) o £ BLUL property.
vom "4 the respec : eg Bay gern ; Pre RL the relief of inj nijunction was bound to establish hie case by producing cogent evidence. Se Ee get as Bey t tenable for the ey a pleinG to clanm that the: f certificate was not available a2 on, the or during the long production of 'lificete before the Lower Appellate Court after he } a Judgment and Decree & Bars SUBDICIONn about the genuineness of:
gai certificate and therefore, the . ebpect of Gr low material to be . preduded st & stage of appeal when there was ample opportumty bs trual Cou decument. The claim thet the wt to produce such decumient was misplaced 2 ee sie np wtp 4 * amc suddenly could be producer! before the Lower Appellate Court has Cyt ow Rb Peyen by BL fe SE S the Lower Appellate a = Willtin ite discretion. There 78 fo Warrant. for witerterence on this cxurt. As no substantiel question % ag Sao ; . oe 2 ble _ OR : _ -- a : _ s. of law arises, the finding of fact by the eourt below ieolar as the RTC extracts are 'soncerned, ~--Are not gy pemmeeel Far fee JeSnevelas Venet "lecsiw@ be Gaocumenta created by the defendant bur sued by a eveys oe PP ogee ee VA Spey mp ext bygamegrics competent authority. The validity or otherwise of the idg@uence of the BTC extracta cannot be the subject urt. There is matter of admdicaton 'before the Cha no challenge to the "recor td of rights § issued in favour of the defendant in proper (proc edings and hence it was x - : Penge bbe an, 2 mtg 7 ie pa? # iy 7 : mot open lor the play iff to question the correctness or Seate issued in tavour of the uf pee 4 fob aft C 6 iS ps es ih ms i.
: - x deter ndant. : These a accuments showing his posecesion"of "the suit property coupled with the indieate | thet the Courts have weighed the relative etrengrhs of the case of each of the parties and arrived at findings af facts which meed oot be disturbed in the "second appeal, as no substentiel question of law arises, and therefore subrmite that the defendant having feed fede Flee epe I eere daretueed (aed apPrGacie We Wourt in writ furmeluction to eeek 2 competent authority seeking regularisation ~.of UnALTMOriged occupation heaving been allowed, the ; ' & : 2g : 7 . - ; . --
matter would rest at that and it is for the defenderd.to establish his case before the obmpetent eutherity to 4 " z Pig , a a & * a er.) at aw od. __. ore Periect tis tithe arc posseseloc of fie Bull property andl : re oe bow, 2 gs oe sh ee hs erase 2) wee PE ase ive ah o B 4 z in that vein, the learned courme! would submit that no substantial question . of law would arise for Questions of Law" at met give wise to any cubsteritml question of lew and sublet that
3. ~ Accordingly, the question to be sompidered is whether the appellant hes suflered miscarriage of justice on account of the Lower Appellate Court negating an application under Order 41 Rule 27 under roperty, From a4 nt Chaat te widence samy, -
a never sonight t be (On the other harvi, the pleineit 5 wa ale clei L avesilable curt ae pendency of the aul & 3 a o. PEME z oetore tne trial Court. "The appell wh mevirg made 4 ete Court to ons pegs See letey oh idles "S oe gate tt 3. -- - appellari'e default to estab! eh that inapite of exercise of 2 ede Ea"
rapsa Peed. aye Faw eyanrg de + oot id ie ae RPO Court. Purther.clause (b) of Order 27 would indicate ould heve rec equired the emir +h lepaiemert 4 produce tne domument, i rOuUrncSs in bet Ae i ie iy i te :
- | a a yok * appeal were to be suaeteirmec'. thers fer une Lower Appellate Court te exacnine the decument ry amd then to decile, whether it could be allowed and accept the same in evidence, as it waa a document issued by the statutory authority. In the absence of ary a ~ a. re! weer ok: wreeget mi them antes dese' 26 TAUG Or other mischief on the pert of the plaintiff, ir wee uncharttable of the aonellere Court m brushi E Boot aed wm anide the evidence produces along with the application. which would heave certainly assisted the Court-in "
aciucicatimg the dispute which wa Mmevely. regarding the possession of the respective parties to. the: sitit, eee st Pg ope ae 3 en amy Pa vost 2 cago therefore, the contention thatthe reiec with the provision of law cannot be 'readily accepted. The Lower Appel te Court-coulki have ivlependently examined th e docur nent and eught to have assigned reagoze an to why the BaNTIe ought to be rejected. Ae it « 7 Sak ss -- eae bas oe eo fae tees et Bey ; Was MOl ENetloe ULal Wos created for the firat time by the B laintll, "it wae a matenal document which hue case | nd the same gugnt oot to have erly clamming &@ possessory ryght and it owas the subject matter of his application aeeking | Peguiacs sation of his unauthoriged occu ipation belore the competent authority. The posscesion and contimaon cultivation of the suit property was evidenced by mumay Apri ste a glarcierer: "pyrite et Tees hs eg deat COTMEMIPOTANCOUS GOCLIMEeria produced by the plaintiff whoch was already on record. Therefore, there was ro 7 12 3 nid See gy <Time ceeris rege at # 3ebee. itt $e oleintiits BE tet ee Soy ae, SLLEEP Lot hang h> wes eee J ae Bek Bd tw ue Lower
-- + Ro A eh eee gan oe - fe GE. he be aegis Appellate Court, The genuinenese Gr oth erwise: or "the document not being in saree int ow plait? ea prod wiced qu testion of law framed as te ia & i Pn ee Cee ro. - z To whether the Lower Appeliste Court was justified in have to be anewered in Wes cerlaily not justified in rejecting 'ether when the merits of the case of the 'plain tft i the delerxiant are weighed, it certainly worl | be in favour of tee plaintiff Thies again hes been a Pp ae lost sight of by the Lower Appellate Court inspite of the oleintel makme an eMoert ts All the lecume in hie case We ?
producin:
to ;
a Le ist % ee Mather Peet cam all .
eo eH lower the.
PESTLE pe if directed hh the ng wit! ers ales Fa eo pees ari uo sefinisa tao Rar 322 F a nether the we * "suid 2etits ors z dscut =) zt tO. the. se ey aa! 4 aoe attac Pee Sis of Ey + ue pl i a 5 8 i oh rr be 4 sec f diapo stated above.