Karnataka High Court
Yakoob Sab vs Ningaiah on 8 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.255 OF 2013 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
YAKOOB SAB
S/O YASAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O KIRUGAVALU VILLAGE
KIRUGAVALU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
NINGAIAH
S/O M SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O KIRUGAVALU VILLAGE
KIRUGAVALU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE)
2
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 13.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MALAVALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2010 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.102/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN), MALAVALLI AND ETC.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING IN ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant, who has questioned the concurrent findings of the Courts below, wherein both Courts have granted perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. The subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.4, Block No.31 measuring 1 acre 3 situated at Kirugavalu Hobli, Malavallli Taluk. The plaintiff is asserting that suit land was granted to him vide order dated 26.07.1961 by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya and accordingly, saguvali chit was issued vide order dated 07.05.1968. The plaintiff claims that since the date of grant, he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is specifically pleaded that plaintiff has paid upset price to the Government and accordingly, he has acquired valid right and title in Sy. No.4 measuring 1 acre.
4. Per contra, the defendant on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendant in his written statement specifically contended that he has acquired valid right and title based on the grant order passed by the competent Authority on 23.02.1980. Based on this grant order, the defendant claimed that he has acquired right to an extent of 12 guntas in Sy. No.4 and to substantiate their respective 4 claims, the plaintiff and defendant have led in oral and documentary evidence.
5. The Trial Court having examined the oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. The Trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the lawful possession over the suit schedule property. The Trial Court has held that the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land and therefore, granted perpetual injunction.
6. First Appellate Court having independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence has concurred with the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court and consequently, appeal is dismissed. Against these concurrent findings, the unsuccessful defendant is before this Court.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the defendant. Perused the judgment.
5
8. The plaintiff is asserting right on basis of the grant made in his favor vide order dated 26.07.1961. To establish his lawful possession over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has produced revenue records, which are marked as Exs.P.1 to 9, he has also produced patta book. The plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered in O.S.No.349/1977, which is marked at Ex.P.12. In the said suit, the Court having examined the saguvali chit has declared that plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also recorded a categorical finding based on the grant order that plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.349/1977 is rendered on 01.09.1978 while defendant is asserting title on the basis of the grant order dated 23.02.1980.
9. Therefore, what emerges is that the plaintiff's grant order is of the year 1961 and there is already adjudication of the title by the competent Civil Court, which is evident from Ex.P.12 i.e., judgment rendered in 6 O.S.No.349/1977. Therefore, it is clearly evident that there is a grant in favour of the plaintiff way back in the year 1961. Both Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his lawful possession. The defendant is asserting right on the basis of the subsequent grant and therefore, both Courts having examined the evidence led in by the plaintiff and rebuttal evidence led in by the defendant rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his lawful possession over the suit land.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, all pending interlocutory applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM