Karnataka High Court
Smt. K Ramadevi vs Smt. V Prameelamma on 10 February, 2016
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1907/2010
BETWEEN:
SMT.K.RAMADEVI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
W/O SRI D.S.RATNAKAR
RESIDING AT NO.263,
BYRASANDRA
NEAR LIC COLONY, 3RD BLOCK,
4TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 076. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.V.AMARNATHAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.V.PRAMEELAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O LATE N.RAMACHANDRAPPA
RESIDING AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
2. SMT. K.K.UMA DEVI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
D/O K.S.KRISHNA MURTHY
RESIDING AT KESTUR VILLAGE,
KODIGEHALLI POST,
DODDA BALLAPURA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 561 203. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.NAGESH, ADV. FOR C/R-1 - ABSENT;
R2 - SERVED)
-2-
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.06.2010 PASSED IN O.S.2223/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE V-
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is plaintiff's appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.2223/2007 by the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby her suit for permanent injunction is dismissed.
2. Parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Sri.A.V.Amarnathan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the plaintiff being the absolute owner in possession of the suit property/residential site having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.4.1993 for valuable consideration, had filed the suit against the -3- defendants when they interfered with the possession of the property. The defence raised by the respondents was, the property belonged to one Ramachandrappa, husband of first defendant and father of other defendants. First defendant had raised hand-loan from one Smt.K.K.Umadevi and as security, they had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt.K.K.Umadevi. On the strength of the said GPA, K.K.Umadevi and her husband had executed sale deed in favour of various purchasers. The defendants are not bound by the said deed executed by K.K.Umadevi in favour of the plaintiff.
Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that, similarly placed persons, who had purchased sites from K.K.Umadevi, had filed suits against the same defendants in O.S.Nos.2223/2007, 2224/2007, 2226/2007, 2228/2007, 2229/2007, 2232/2007 and 2234/2007, which were adjudicated before the same -4- Court. The defence raised in all those cases was similar, issues involved were identical and all those cases are decreed whereas the present suit alone came to be dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant herein could not prosecute the case effectively since her husband, who was looking after the case, was indisposed at the relevant time and subsequently he died. The original documents were with her husband and same could not be handed over to her Counsel at the time of trial. The Trial Court while believing the case of other similarly placed plaintiffs supra has dismissed the suit only for the reason that the certified copy of the original khata extract and tax paid receipts are not produced. This has caused miscarriage of justice to the plaintiff. Now the appellant has filed an application I.A.No.1/2014 seeking permission to produce the relevant original documents and these documents may be taken on record by allowing the application and the matter may -5- be remanded to the court below by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree.
4. Respondents though served and an opportunity being given, are not present.
5. On perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Judge in the body of his judgment observes that, except the sale deed Ex.P1, the plaintiff has not produced other certifying material evidence to substantiate her lawful possession over the suit property. The learned Judge specifies that the khata certificate and tax paid receipts are the vital documents to appreciate the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Now the plaintiff is before this Court explaining the omission on her part for not producing the original deeds before the Trial Court, at the same time she has produced the original khata extract and tax paid receipts. Necessarily these are the documents, -6- which the Trial Court has to scrutinize and pass appropriate order.
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 29.6.2010 passed in O.S.No.2223/2007 by the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, is set aside.
Registry is directed to return the original documents produced by the appellant before this Court, if necessary application is moved.
Without waiting for notice from the Court, both parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 3.3.2016.
If necessary application is moved, plaintiff/appellant shall be permitted to produce
additional oral and documentary evidence subject to the right of the defendants to adduce rebuttal evidence. -7-
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2014 and 3/2014 stand disposed of.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-