Karnataka High Court
Madegowda vs B M Madegowda on 20 August, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.31895/2014(GM-CPC)
Between:
MADEGOWDA
S/O MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT BYALARUHUNDI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571304. .. PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VEERABHADRASWAMY H P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B M MADEGOWDA
S/O LATE MAHADEVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2. PUTTAMADAMMA
W/O B M MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
BYALARUHUNDI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571304. .. RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.3.2014 IN M.A.NO.22/2013
VIDE ANNEXURE J.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was the plaintiff before the trial Court. Plaintiff claims to have purchased the land bearing Sy.No.91/4 of Surahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk measuring 1 acre 29 guntas. On the ground that the defendants were seeking to interfere with the petitioner's possession of the land, a suit was filed and an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The trial Court had granted an order of injunction, after contest, directing that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the boundary mentioned in respect of land bearing Sy.No.91 of Surahalli Village being the suit property. The same having been challenged by the defendant/respondent herein in appeal, the appellate court has addressed the discrepancy and the manner in which the controversy has arisen. It has noticed that the plaintiff had purchased the property from his vendor who had in turn purchased the property from the defendants and it was the defendants' case that the description of the properties as defined in the survey records 3 on the one hand and the revenue records on the other were inconsistent.
3. No-doubt the revenue records produced by the plaintiff indicated that the plaintiff was in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.91/4. However, this was an incorrect description and the boundaries shown in the survey records tallied with that of the land bearing Sy.No.91/1 which in fact was the property that had been sold to the plaintiff and it could not be land bearing Sy.No.91/4.
4. This argument has been demonstrated by the defendant to the satisfaction of the appellate Court and therefore, the appellate Court has set-aside the order of the trial Court and has held that prima facie it would appear that the plaintiff is laying claim to land bearing Sy.No.91/4 on the basis of the revenue records which the trial Court has held would carry presumptive value and has proceeded to grant relief notwithstanding that the survey records were also produced before the trial Court which indicated that there was a discrepancy and the defendants had also produced material to show that they had taken steps to have the discrepancy corrected before the competent authority. It 4 is in that light that the lower appellate authority has varied and set-aside the order of injunction.
5. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff can very well exercise possession over the land bearing Sy.No.91/1 which is described in the survey records even according to the defendant. If that land is available, there is no impediment for the plaintiff to claim possession over the same to which the defendant cannot have any objection.
6. In that view of the matter, there is no warrant for interference and the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Brn