Karnataka High Court
Smt H Siddamma vs Smt Gangamma on 21 March, 2023
-1-
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2327 OF 2006 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. H.SIDDAMMA,
MAJOR,
W/O LATE GANGAIAH
2. SRI. MARIGOWDA,
MAJOR,
S/O LATE GANGAIAH
3. SRI MAHESHWARAPPA,
Digitally signed MAJOR,
by PAVITHRA N
Location: High
S/O LATE GANGAIAH
Court Of
Karnataka
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
THYAGADAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
PINCODE - 562 123.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA,
MAJOR,
W/O NARASHIMAIAH
2. MUNIYAPPA,
MAJOR,
S/O LATE NARASHIMAIAH
3. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
MAJOR,
S/O LATE NARASHIMAIAH
-2-
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
4. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, MAJOR,
S/O LATE NARASHIMAIAH
MAJOR,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4
ARE R/A THYAGADAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
PINCODE - 562 123.
5. SMT. BYLAMMA
W/O SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O SASUVEGATTA VILLAGE
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
PINCODE - 562 113.
6. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O BYARANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
PINCODE - 562 123.
7. SMT. RAMAKKA
W/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O KULAVANAHALLI
VILLAGE AND POST
THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
PINCODE - 562 123.
8. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O SRI. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O OBALAPURA
VILLAGE & POST,
THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
-3-
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
PINCODE - 562 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.M.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR N.K, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R8;
R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
R1 DECEASED, R2 TO R4 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R1)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER MEMORANDUM OF REGULAR
FIRST APPEAL U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND
DECRE DT.09.08.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.486/1997 ON THE
FILE OF THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The defendant is before this Court impugning the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2006 passed in O.S No.486/1997 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs declaring that they are the absolute owners of the schedule property and restraining the defendants by way of permanent injunction from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
-4-RFA No. 2327 of 2006
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 have filed the suit O.S No.486/1997 against defendant Nos.1 to 7 seeking declaration and for permanent injunction that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The schedule appended to the plaint describes the piece and parcel of the property bearing survey No.61/1, New No.61/1-B measuring 01 acre 18 guntas situated at Thyagadahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, with the boundaries mentioned therein.
4. It is contended by the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of late Narashimaiah who acquired the schedule property under registered sale deed dated 06.03.1959 executed by vendor Gangaiah and since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of Narashimaiah, the plaintiffs inherited the same and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. It is also contended that Gangaiah -5- RFA No. 2327 of 2006 had acquired the schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 15.04.1956. After alienating the suit schedule property by Gangaiah in favour of Narashimaiah, Gangaiah had no manner of right, title or interest over the schedule property and the defendants being the wife and children have also not acquired any right over the schedule property. The revenue records were standing in the name of Narashimaiah and after his death it was mutated in the name of plaintiff No.1.
5. It is contended that the defendants with an intention to knock off the valuable property submitted applications making false claim over the same. The village accountant of Thyagadahalli also colluded with the defendants and managed to manipulate the revenue records to change the same in the names of the defendants. The plaintiffs opposed for the same and filed an application to restore their names in the revenue records. The revenue Inspector conducted the spot mahazar which clearly disclose that the village accountant had mutated the names of the defendants without any basis. However, since the revenue entries were not restored in the names of the plaintiffs and they were informed to approach the Civil Court, -6- RFA No. 2327 of 2006 the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.
6. It is stated that on 04.07.1997, the defendants tried to trespass over the suit schedule property on the basis of the false entries in the revenue records with an intention to oust the plaintiffs. Therefore, cause of action arose since then. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction against the defendants.
7. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed their written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiffs. It is contended that there is no collusion between them and village accountant and they never tried to trespass over the schedule property with an intention to oust the plaintiffs. On the contrary, it is contended that the suit schedule property was originally belonging to Gangaiah, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 as he purchased it under the registered sale deed. After the death of Gangaiah, the defendants succeeded to the property and accordingly, revenue entries changed in their names and they are paying the revenue in respect of schedule property. It is the plaintiffs who -7- RFA No. 2327 of 2006 are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the defendants by their high- handed acts. The defendants who are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property are enjoying the same in their own rights. The plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest and they are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
8. Defendant Nos.4 to 7 who were subsequently impleaded have filed their written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the suit is barred by limitation, as Gangaiah, father of defendant Nos.2 to 7 was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since for about 45 years, the revenue records were also standing in his name and after his death the defendants came in possession of the same. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.
9. On the basis of these pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:
Issues
1. "Whether the plaintiffs prove that Late Sri. Narashimaiah purchased the suit land from late Sri.Gangaiah through sale deed dated -8- RFA No. 2327 of 2006 06.03.1959 and put in possession as alleged in plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove they are now in actual, physical possession and enjoyment of suit land as absolute owner as alleged?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove the interference by the defendants?
4. Whether defendants prove that the suit property is the estate of Late. Sri. Gangaiha and they have succeeded the suit property through succession as alleged by them?
5. Whether defendants prove that they are in actual and peaceful possession of suit land?
6. Whether suit is properly valued and proper court fee is paid?
7. What relief plaintiffs are entitled?
8. What order or decree?
Additional Issues
1. Whether defendant No.4 to 7 proves that suit is barred by limitation?
10. The plaintiffs examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 in support of their contention. The defendants examined DWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 18 in support of their defence. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these material on record, answered issue Nos. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 in the affirmative, issue Nos.4 and 5 in the negative and -9- RFA No. 2327 of 2006 additional issues No.1 in the negative and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs declaring that they are the absolute owners in possession of the property and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiffs.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have preferred this appeal.
12. Heard Sri. Gururaj Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. H.M. Somashekhariah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Sri. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 8. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that admittedly Gangaiah was the owner of the schedule property as he purchased it under Ex.P.1 dated 15.04.1956. Gangaiah died in the year 1979, till then it was Gangaiah who was in possession and enjoyment of the property. He never sold the schedule property in favour of any other person much less in favour of Narashimaiah as claimed by the plaintiffs.
- 10 -
RFA No. 2327 of 2006Admittedly, the defendants are the wife and children of Gangaiah and after his death, the defendants have succeeded to his interest. Ex.P.2 styled as sale deed produced by the plaintiffs is a disputed document. The description of Gangaiah as son of Hanumaiah disclose that it is a concocted document. The revenue records stood in the name of Gangaiah and thereafter in the names of the defendants. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties in proper perspective. It has committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for. Therefore, the appellants prayed for allowing the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with costs.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposing the appeal submitted that Gangaiah had purchased the property from his vendor under Ex.P.1 dated 15.04.1956. He sold the same in favour of Narashimaiah under the registered sale deed dated 06.03.1959 which is produced as Ex.P.2. Either Gangaiah or the defendants have never challenged the said document. There is nothing on record to contend that the sale deed is a concocted document. Even though Gangaiah was
- 11 -
RFA No. 2327 of 2006referred to as son of Hanumaiah, it is later corrected as he is son of Muniyappa. The said correction was carried out in the sale deed itself and there is an endorsement to that effect. When the title over the schedule property was transferred from Gangaiah in favour of Narashimaiah, Gangaiah could not have retained any interest over the property. When Gangaiah himself had no right over the property, the question of defendants succeeding to the property after his death does not arise. The plaintiffs have led the oral and documentary evidence before the Court which clearly demonstrated that Narashimaiah had purchased the property and after his demise the plaintiffs being the legal representatives have succeeded to his interest and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, rightly came to the conclusion and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merits. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
- 12 -
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
15. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Balwant Singh and another Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by Lrs. and others1 in support of his contention that the revenue entries would not create any right over the immovable property.
16. In view of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above points is in the 'Negative' for the following reasons:
REASONS
17. The specific contention of the plaintiffs is that Gangaiah had purchased the schedule property under Ex.P.1, which is dated 15.04.1956. Ex.P.1 is an admitted document. Gangaiah is none other than the husband of defendant No.1 and father of other defendants. The plaintiffs contend that 1 ILR 1998 KAR 707
- 13 -
RFA No. 2327 of 2006Gangaiah sold the schedule property in favour of Narashimaiah i.e., husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of other plaintiffs under the sale deed dated 06.03.1959 produced as per Ex.P.2. This fact is disputed by the defendants.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Gangaiah is described as the son of Hanumaiah when in fact, he is the son of Muniyappa and therefore the sale deed is a concocted document. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P.2, even though Gangaiah is referred to as son of Hanumaiah, immediately the same was corrected as he is not the son of Hanumaiah but son of Muniyappa. Moreover, there is an endorsement for carrying out such a correction. There are no other reasons for the defendants to contend that Ex.P.2 is a concocted document. Therefore, it cannot be said that the documents is a concocted one. Once the immovable property is acquired under a registered deed, the proviso appended to Section 128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act exempts from the obligation to report such acquisition to the prescribed officer. Even if the revenue entries continue in the name of the vendor, that will not create any right in his favour or in favour of his successors. In the present case, Ex.P.3 the revenue extract
- 14 -
RFA No. 2327 of 2006pertaining to the schedule property discloses that initially the property was standing in the name of one Thimmappa. Thereafter, it was mutated in the name of Gangaiah and thereafter in the name of Narasimahaiah. Ex.P.4 is the Encumbrance certificate for the period from 01.01.1959 to 31.03.1959 where there is reference to the sale deed Ex.P.2. Ex.P.5 is the survey settlement akarbandh in respect of the schedule property. Ex.P.8 being the Record of rights in respect of the schedule property initially standing in the name of Gangaiah and only during 1995-96 it was mutated in the name of the defendants. The suit came to be filed in the year 1997 and as per Ex.P.6 there was a dispute regarding the entries in the revenue record and the revenue Inspector had also drawn a mahazar. Therefore, no much importance could be attached to such revenue entries which was effected without any basis. It is the settled proposition of law that the revenue entries would not either create or extinguish the right over the immovable property. When there is absolutely no reason to ignore Ex.P.2 which is a registered sale deed dated 06.03.1959, which is also referred to in the Encumbrance certificate, I do not find any reason to accept the contentions of the defendants that
- 15 -
RFA No. 2327 of 2006Gangaiah was having interest over the schedule property and after his death the same was inherited by the defendants. The oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court do not substantiate the contention of the defendants in any manner.
19. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, it has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence and arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and decree dated 09.08.2006 passed in O.S No.486/1997 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed.
- 16 -
RFA No. 2327 of 2006Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE SKS