Karnataka High Court
Veeranna S/O Veerabhadrappa Dead By Lrs vs Chikkanna S/O Mallappa on 7 February, 2011
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAl'~£GAL_Q_RE
DATED THES THE 7" DAY OF FEBRUARY
BEFORE
THE Hoixrgus MR.3UsT1CE»vJAwA::5"r;'A:~%1M ' 'V
R.S.A, NO. 88%:.z20;Q_3'
BETWEEN: :
VEERANNA,
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA,
DEAD BY ms .
a) SUSHEELAMMA, H V
we LATE \g'EE_RANiiJA;'V.; % ~ A
AGED ABQUUSI
b) VIMAL.3\DE;f§?I_»,.'V.V' '---- ' .' V'
x'.E'A.E1_?_\S '
C) M;5&.NJlJL;'5\M§*'i£§(',.:
AGED ABOLiT'3.{f£~YE--A_R'$
d)sHANT8AguMARf V'
,..;§.sE@ ABOu?3_: EEARS
.A e} 1s::,j;if:f"%+:';7::.;--,
;::fEs<7;;3:";" 28 YEARS
' {b} f?.0%'<'-,9; mg QAUSHTERS
"{>§'m'e?*E '\,fEERAf'éE'*éAf ma. ARE
P.Es5:m:x:§ A"? CHAWEAER
* +..4_i9fi:RLfigS%§UE%fi:?%=*%figPU§E.£x mam;
V. {:::~mL.AK§§E ?;a:3.§9< W §?:: 522
5"' ' 5
3_ 4;" /I/'
,/wk;
'/ ii :1
'C§%§?Rfi:§£§RGA SZSTRECY.
£iPELE.A€'éTS
{$5 SR: EVE.T,3AGAF\§ MGHAN, A§'=.f',,)
rx
\_,/
IN.)
AND:
CHIKKANNA,
S/O MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT {:36 YEARS,
RETIRED SURVEYGR,
RESIDING AT CHALUR
PARASHURAMAPURA HoBL.I,;~~ ._
CHALLAKERE TALUK ~ 577,522, ; *
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. '
(BY SR1BM.SIDDAPPA_,"'A_Dv.,)'
THIS RSA FILED U553-~-~.E...(30"'LJ/G 4'2.);2-II" OF CPC,
AGAINST THE IuDG_MENT:'ANLLDECREE DATED D2-0I-
2008 PASSED IN RA;'r~;"oI.4I2/f';2(3o2'--.DIg; 'THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.D:§a)"CLI,ALL;AK'E.RE;._';DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND C'O!\jFIR:iV!ING~:THE«.QF?.DER.SATED 1I--1I.--200:2
PASSED IN:'FDP(.I-No.25/1s:I94'*QN---Tz~I.E-- FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE (JR,'DJ\£);.AN'D._:QM-EC.';' CQHAILLAKERE, DISMISSING
THE PETITIO:N'_,vFILED4U,?iO )'2~~g.L--;:atI_LE 12(1) (C) AND (2) DE
CPC _F..Q.R'"C.Qi~J'E5:¥JC'I"1.1\JG_'EI\£QU.IFiY FOR ASSESSMENT OF
MESNE PRGFITS AS ?E'f2_DIRECTI{)f\3S IN R.A.24,I8S.
This apI'peai'-- (§Ofi'§i)h gA:.:fO l'v4Z3(%l\fi'7I§$Si{)fi this day, the Court
deiivered the femwing ' _ "
"«JDDGMENT
."ifirgisV%S..DEEa)IIIfC¥Ff'S Secoséé agpeaé agafinst the judgment
IE3 D,,%A~I.%':.g;D2I*"'Is;I 'I»:§I%:éi fiie DI flévéi j%Ddge {Samar Bivnjg
'?'I(._C%I;IV§Iaker"éf, ..Cf'%'I:«IIII.éS.SéIIg DID aDpEa§ and CDDférII'Img '§:§'%@ DTDEP
I f;I:aIfe;:I: ';;III:;:II'2TDD:; in ?§§IZ§§f§:f% {If} Ehe DIE D?' Cm; Iuége
'. '.._§:}&E.§1':--i{}E*::§§§in.;5 QDDEIDEIEEE, §ESmISSEI'2§ DIE Detétm flies
..,A'ESP4De\IDf;EéiaIT
appeliant, Veeranna flied ae application to amend the
pEatnt to add a prayer for grant of damages/mesne"profits
to be quantified in an enquiry as permissibE.e..J"un'de1rVyvthe
scheme of Order XX, C.P.C.
d) The teamed appetiaifiepttttjL£Gge',_ T
grounds urged by the respond4ent¥defenjd.anAr§t"En Va§5"pe'a'E--,
confirmed the finding of'V"t«s.tVfie tr%at§._V_Ce:t;" whfie
dismissing the appeéi',__has"V'he'ss'e.d:"a._pecuEtetr'terder which
reads thus:
: fl'_'--'Th:e ap.p'ea£. '§s.i_"-disnfiissed. The
"-3fud'jg"nf1eet«_ar2d d_e:j;"ee of the learned
V _Pi'%nVtip--at "'=M;.i':1~s,i}?f, Chitradurga, in
'*~_C3.S;.,ll/8_G da__t_ed_}' 27.1.1986 is
"*£con§§'§rmed';«e.._§.A.7 is aEso aliowed. The
.p'1e§j'm;i'ff._ 'permitted to amend the
e'!eVié"2t:'t1efou_r"eethe that ceurt as sought
" for; _Tiée're"5:haH be a decree for rnesne
" ._pre~fiT::s ta be determined on a separate
e't:£3.uV_iryA.g%véng eppdrtenity to both the
earttes at that enquérgru'
"T45;-e;V'_i.:'essdndentwdefendeet was 2:2 seeend eeeeeé
eefere this court which was etseesed at E3;
t%"te"§e_€a§e:A:§;::g etdet:
'eeeeet is dismissed wttheet being
edrettted.'
6
f) Armed with the order of the first appellate ceurt ie
R.A.24/86, Veeranna approached the trial court tcfamehd
the plamt as sought for by him in his -E1[)DliCa'€l_€%.fi""§'l£'l'llt4Ef%15?}?
trial judge purporting to be in obedience of__th-ei arse; eft't'h§'*
first appellate court, meekly pvethl§t'te_d'--4._th;e.fi§ppV.evl'leVnt.V'co
amend the plamt. Seen thereafte'r,ph'eA.filed.>'%F_t)¥";2'5/§}i;~.VV'V
g) A perusal of the iomtefrcoutt"*teCerf%eVVéVEeVt}ea'ls that
the learned trial j1:_':tle_ge '.'he's".'Ve.:§§ef%*e.ittetlA'thN'appellant~
Veeranna to amend the order of the
first appeilgsvteiiiga-asrt::A__'(e%ttte<:t«etl'»'1labehye)'Sin the effice Etsetf
without court. To cap the
and enquiry has been
conc3t3~cte«dto- Vtj1et';eV~rh*lé*V7};é'eeamaees/mesne profits to be paid
tetljze aptpeE_l'ae.t'.'asA"i.f Vitswag a decree in 05,11/89. in the
eesé:t;;e,.;*ry ::~:e Certd't§'Cted, appeilaet predaiming he is entétiee
€§'ee§fieees/meene prefite, lee evééeeee ee 9&3: ené
l'zjeliefi.eel:-fieeumehtex Eh rebettai ef which the %"@S§3fl§E{f€fi§"~
eefeheeet has teeéetee evéeenee as SW': and exemmee a
V' . _w''%'}iit:ees{ ffiizégseppe es fife-£2,
ls'
;e~'-use
\
7
h) The teamed triaE judge after conducting enquiry,
negated the appeliant«Veeranea's ciaim for damages for
alieged abstraction by the resedndent~defen~de:r;nt':'__"_ét-5.1'tee
flew of water and dismissed FDP.25/94__t)$)'~--.,Qrd_tert.4_detedI
11.11.2002. With désdais':fuE ceniductg agapeIt-a'r:t_':ie_;:.«.;:L:'gegtn
further legai pursuit in R.A,4_12/O2---Arteiteratifzg.t1'E's"CEe'itfi<ter.d
damages. The Eeamed ape'"ee!1:a;'te'judge:en:.'a3'e;.'eEdVeV%aisaE ot
the material on rec<:.§d..I,,A_heid"fié'i_;;A;.eVsit'not etdtvitttefld to mesne
profits/damages as the decree in
o.s.3.1/so gg*:L'3i;§§ismiiissed-:.'*theVA'e'ej3ee_l_,:V.Tessaiiing which this
second V t
4. 'ebs'e':f§x-teidt ,§»h"tw.g§a'--:a'g:*aphs supra, this is one such
case wiiete pattjeVs.:ate"'_.i»itigatEeg not 0eE\,r on their own but
the %ét§getEoxe"»...t§es tseee eentimsed because ef manifest
.1'ii!_ege:S:t§e$vi"'~--:emm§tted by the first epeeiiete eeurt fie
2:}.eVnd"%'t§"d_:%-__et;;'ét.s geégreent En eexze-fee and the tea: eeutt
eer§e'*§tt&n§f the aepeiéent te emeed tee eéemt wétheeé:
" vs§':*:_§%e2,éiE;::g tide ereeeddre ezeeetieed isfifiét Seder Eff Rete :23?
'tee.
8
5. Thus the questions that confront us are:
(3) Whether the first appedate court was ftghti ra
directing the trial cezsrt id cohdecté'».e_ré:;:;:V§";*s;;
regarding mesne profits withotd;'fmodifying
judgment and decreein
(b) Whether amendrfhent"efd"the t"naS*ab'eehrvr»
permitted in thetnwahrner kd'e.§fv':f1t'e
6. To answer theS'e to the
proceedings in VO.S.11'[_8(>)' thereafter is
necessary. 'yap'peE'i"ar1te_\rreeranna had flied
{).S.11/St?' Vdectare he hae right to
atiovtpw.as';e"'9.:Ja..'ter_"frdm his %and through a specified
channeieidnvg edge of the Eand beiohging to
r*e$e0h'd'e.rrt}Ch%:kkarrna and atso td direct the
.A :'re_$;:Qpnde«hVAt'*~h'g an erder ef maedatory énjehetéen te remeve
. t'h.e« <:ié5:':{é'5t"'rL;{;t:;it)"}§ aliegediy caused Er: the dew cs? eeeh water
arid a-5E:<5.e"t'e reetraéh him free": mterferéhg with his}; right te
' * agree the ereeerty in Qéififiiééfir Set the reii E fer greet es'
éhetsee erefitsfdereeeee wag eenseéeueee by its abseeeer
'hcerrsedueetigr theugh the eepetiarrt succeeded in
\ I
/a~<;;'.::Rv ~mfw'
/'
9
€95.11/80, the siiit granted oniy those reliefs and no
decree was passed regarding his erititiement teieceive
damages or mesne profits. Undoubtedly he iva.s_"s,éi"cei'eie's§dE
and hence was not in any appeai action. The res_titihde'_i'iet--".
went in appeai in R.A,24/86 ?J\ih»iCh'«th"e a«pi:):eViiai:e'-:'C0Vi1"'rti
dismissed finding no favourwith th__e:'g_reui1ds--v_iti'rge~d
the impugned order in C}iS.i"1.iiT/'SO,
7. It is iiiateriai whiie dismissing
R.A.2i:i/86, the appeiia--tejju'd--get»_has;hfiessed the foiiowiiag
order:
_ .... '*--:;,__fTh_e ._a'ppe.aVi_VV_i,¢£ dismissed. The
V "'~.ijudg{}'1ent'i..a'nd decree of the learned
.pi'iifi'Cib'3€i<'"".__!"'§'E.Ei'i£~3}iff, Chitradurga, iii
O...S';ij1i,./8Ci._'"W.dated 2371,1986 is
" «;:erif_irme=d_."'_;I.A.7 is aiso aiiowed. The
pia.i.h'--tiff'». is" permitted to amend the
'p"ieiiit iiaefeie the tiiai ceiirt as seiight
.. fer. "ihere siiaii be a decree fer mesne
.4V"'~-pwefits :0 be determined an a separate
¥._e_i_ieuiry giving {Z%;f3pQi'fZt.i§'iit'§;' to both the
Tieertiee ei 'aha: enqiiiryf
Ti"ié.,i__i'ii§i..,.i§iE8§ erder exireeiee? csentains three eiieeiiees,
= _é;i:;i,
§
Km';
i U
(i) the appeai is dismissed and the judgment and
decree in O.S.:1/80 dated 27.1.1986 is
confirmed; 1
(ii) I.A.7 fiied by the aepeiiant (re.sp.e_énd_en't,VV"in
appeai) seeking amendment efa"the_'p%a%~--nt7-'isi--,
aiiowed; and
(iii) The decree is passed mesne%
decreed on a sepaiejate ie.n::;a.;Ery fgivivng
opportunity to both sides in that,veng'ui'ry.i': " '
8. As regards the firstipaeft dtder, it is
understandable tha't:_"'Fi.r3di.ng Eniiithe grounds
against the impugned"Vjasdc;i}hent--';'~~.the';appeal has been
dismissed. 3'.vB'['.E'f_E_~.Vi:;CViS :tegijet:ta'b'EeV that Li-\.7 flied by
the in that appeai) seeking
ameifvidFt}*E.?i;1A§tfi'i"{iV§'--~h:§'§i f5!.§AVi"e'"%.t__ E-nfO.S.11/88 is aliowed and in
anticipation of"::At§~c_h"-.a%'ne.;"adment to add the prayer for
grant ei*»r_:iese5e._;)é*r3fit$.~"or damages, the aepeiiate judge
%""2,,a_§<'_f,' 'issued timid' ditectien that 'there shail' be a decree
fer' ifiesne prefiis ta be determined En a separate
' iee.qei;?y:V"ig§'s'-Eng epportunity re bath efdesf Each
" ~. 'e§;et't'§t~;iéi:;--:steaaity seegat
1 1
9. The appeilant no doubt couid not have challenged the
said decree because aii that he wanted was gi'anted',"'*~--3"here
was no prayer for mesee profits and réghtiy t«h.e_'44'tVr3:a43:'";:Vt§t:V.rt
had no occasion to adjudicate on that '
irony is, the teamed apoeilate '~.ryhi_Ie~: the 7
appeal preferred by the ree'po:rs.dent~defe'nvdadttdhasL
accepted the applécatiorr I';!i\;;e«T',;"f:VV:'1"§.Ee€i theea'ooVe.V§§tVaht'V'hereto
seeking amendment':c;f Mha':"3y'"V:reasoo the
appeliate judge was the"eoV'i'n;iod.:_:t3€a'tV'»»_a_'mendmeet ef the
piaént was th.e"»'deot1tffl$__ef'erescribed by Order
VI Rulei" been fotlowed. Not
allowed the appiécatéon,
and td Veapdit' the decree for mesne prefits
ie_a..e":tE£:i143at¥..}C'JE's..a-nd"'.di'feeted the triai court te conduct an
A :'ed'ui5..%'°-3? adder t-'VIZ'er'Td'e§9><i>< Rate 3.2{1){c} and (2), fitfitfit and
amount oayame, Wheihf it ée uneeetaéeabée.
K
L3, Aaeeeiéant hereie wee neéthez fie efeeeeeeeei F30?
_ ér: tee? wag! ageeéevee eat; the gedgezeoti aed decree ée
V'-fafiestéee. "%"he eeeeai wag by %he edverearga %.e5 defendant
whe faded as the decree was eenférmed, Geee the tréai
12
court's judgment and decree is eehfirmed by dismissing the
appeai, the appellate judge had become fehctus offieie and
Could not have passed any further erder on any epp"'§~ie_atvion
breught by the plaintiff who was oniy resistir#tj..'t'he,1'Lepp'eeii.V»
as respondent. Such iiiegal 0rderJ,mth_ough"§rt1"ptj"geVédv'E3VefaVte".
this court, was not noticed by '»t4his:"'ep3urt;._ '~7f:his"'C;U--%,£!'F<.f?3 R.S2A.856/91 feund no me:'EVt"E.§} theeppea! i'ahd.i."accprdih%g%*,:t"
dismissed the appeai by___i:""-pita-er 30.10.1991 confirming the judgm"ee"t_of:,th2.efi"r'stgeipipeIiate court so far as it reiates tdconfitm%--egftheA_j.gd'epeei*€t"ef the tria! court passed :T_i*et.,eV ij§s"'ed"'é9efe:*en<:e about the iEiega;'iVi't%§,?'Ceeimittfed _V:bg.:'_'itiie pita'! court in permitting the appeile:nt'--te at;fée%f§d.:kE';--~is"»p!»aint witheet being an appeiiant and further V_peVss.§-ndtide. decree for mesee profits wétieeut ' EE'}f3i'€3..5.;3'.EE§i'}§ en En'qf:3'Et-g. I vv.:VE3e'spAEite--:"tP:§s fact pesétien referred tie ebeve, Eeemed eeensei' fiiifi the eppeiient with 'azeeemeeee eeeteeds the is ezeepeii" the eppeiiete eeert greetéeg the eeetee ef reesrie 'k_"p:~r:§'etg was eeefirmee by this ease in e;.s.e.ese,:e3; end sgchis eeett serene: now refer fie epy ef the issues whieh 13 amounts to E'€3'*€}D€i"i§i'1(_Z}. It is a matter of regret that eueh orfier was not brought to the notice of this coertjby the appeiiant herein, Lineoubteciiy with sinister {ies«i~gii:_A*'ma"E:e uniawfai gain. Besides, even if this courtMha'd--...not"~res'"ei*i'e(jVit to the said aspect, it is obvious it wa_:sbVe'~'g_oriie'-- Viof 7 z consideration in the appeal; as the-issue wa's.§§«ihethi--ei*'vthe.e judgment and decree of t'hTe:."»tzfiai questioned court in Viovroper. Of course it was hecesseiaft.hatt'_:th:is.-'eo'Liiit;'iisi~iouid have notett the iiiegaiity the first appeiiate court, 'i-tmis"'ii?ic:itidone, it wiii not entitie the zaooeiiiifity useaiiitiyfor his convenience. The ' corate'etio'nEVof Counsel for the aopeiiant that L t A V these issLies_iwei'e i§'i')'C 'raised by the reseendent before the ' A 'iii-iai %::'eui*t_iii finiavwecree ereceedings and hence C&i"i§'§{§E be eteikeeiejétioiieofaeideration, is diecouetee. iiegateing his eententiee that the evieehee in " =eeei:§;'eai tztiafi eeffieieet te eetitie iiim te mesoe f§i"i3§§§ZS,, aii 'that eeeie ee said is, eiiiy a iegeé tight eeeie be enfoteee ie a eoort of i§v=.i and not a right which he is not entitied in E4 law, Granting a decree for mesrie profits was beyond the jurisdiction of appellate court and as direction is epperently illegal, it could not have been enforced as tigone, Though the trial court could have r1etEc:ecf.V__t'l?:~i.:e. V' fault could be found with it bevbeiijser i_vtV.§s smart and the trial judge has folivowed the would have been censtreed""vraV§r'i.r:lésebe:fl_§_e§*::fe. "Therefore, merely because the 'trite! the final decree proceeding on t'%ie.'t;1t$e:;:tion'_.r;f:':é*3Ve'ii__r3_talnabiEity, it will not entitie the
13. vtaefore whom such order was has also considered the case on merEt,_'_er2cjl to this aspect, but has oi:-feéilesed th'e"V-eiopeel. I de not fine feet? with the first . eppei_Ea'ee-,:fo--e_rt also. §-Eowex:'er, on merit? this petition oety éiemiesel, me with érepeeétéen ef exem ole eyiliceets, Er: tee teeeit, the eeeeeé £3 oéeteéeeeei eeeweréeg the _'§QU€S?§G?'2S raises regereéng rneéeteieeeliéeg Er: the negative 15 and Hnpssaugcastpayabm byt&e appenantzfi RSJXLGOG/-- to be pakito the respandent who had been tfidng to reafisesfnnnseftheckxweefnxn 198Gto 2001@ fi :f » §§§%V vgh*
-can->w_