Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 72593 (KAR)

DORESWAMY v. SRI NAGARAJU

RSA/1398/2022 · 2025-07-11

H P Sandesh

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25483 RSA No. 1398 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1398 OF 2022 (INJ) BETWEEN: DORESWAMY DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. H.D. KAVITHA D/O LATE DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3. SRI. H.D. MALLESH S/O LATE DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS M. MAHADEVAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS 4. SRI. PRADEEP H M S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENT OF HULIGEREPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJA L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE ANKEGOWDA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25483 RSA No. 1398 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O HULIGEREPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. 2. THE TAHASILDAR MADDUR TALUK MADDUR. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.05.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.80/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.427/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. I have heard the appellants' counsel. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. 3. (i) The factual matrix of the case are that the plaintiff before the Trial Court is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit. It is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25483 RSA No. 1398 of 2022 further contended that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are illegally interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property. (ii) The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. The defendants in their written statement contended that the plaintiff is not in posession of the suit schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya has set aside the grant of land in favour of plaintiff and remanded the case to the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner observed that amount paid by their father towards TT charge in respect of Sy.No.78 of Huligerepura i.e., the suit schedule property is true and the documents produced by them are trustworthy and also the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and it is the defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants in their written statement have denied the very possession of suit schedule property by the plaintiff. (iv) The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence and plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15 and defendant No.2 examined - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25483 RSA No. 1398 of 2022 himself as DW.1 and got marked 08 documents as Exs.D1 to D8 and also examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, the rival claim made by both the plaintiffs and defendants in respect of the very same property, in detail discussed that the documents which stand in the name of plaintiff clearly indicate that the plaintiff is growing sugarcane in the suit schedule property and spot inspection report of the revenue inspector for the year 1988-1989 discloses that the plaintiff has been enjoying 26 guntas of land and while conducting the spot inspection found that the plaintiff had grown paddy and the patta book also indicates the name of the plaintiff in respect of the very same land and though the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya found fault with the report of the revenue inspector but the Deputy Commissioner of Mandya was of the opinion that the plaintiff was enjoying the land from the years 1970-1971 and 1971-1972. Moreover in the evidence of DW.2, he has categorically admitted about raising of paddy and sugar cane by using VC channel water by the plaintiff and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court. Therefore, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that possession has been established by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25483 RSA No. 1398 of 2022 the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Though it is contended that the defendants Nos.2 and 3 are cultivating the property, no records are placed on record to prove the said contention and hence, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, defendant Nos.2 and 3 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has in detail observed at paragraph No.18 the evidence of DW.2 and even extracted the admission given by DW.2 that 'the plaintiff is cultivating the land by growing paddy as well as sugarcane' and defendants claim title only based on the document - Ex.D3 and the Appellate Court having reassessed the material available on record dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 5. It is not in dispute that Ex.D3 - show cause notice of eviction was issued to one Mallaiah S/o. Helavegowda and not to Mallegowda who is the father of the defendants. But the fact is that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff is cultivating the land by growing paddy as well as sugar cane and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25483 RSA No. 1398 of 2022 the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the defendants, particularly DW.2 has categorically admitted the same and the Appellate Court also in paragraph No.18 extracted the admission of DW.2 and came to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant Nos.2 and 2 vehemently contended that both the Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established the possession over the suit schedule property, in spite of defendant Nos.2 and 3 claimed that they were in possession of the property, the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit and also contended that the grant of land on 30.08.2016 in LNDCR No.344/1994-1995 in favour of plaintiff was cancelled by the Tahsildar, Maddur and plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and in spite of it, both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction and this Court has to frame substantial question of law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25483 RSA No. 1398 of 2022 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusal of the materials which were considered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, it is clear that while considering the suit for permanent injunction, the Court has to look into the material on record as on the date of filing of the suit, whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property in respect of which he is claiming the relief of permanent injunction and also whether there is an interference by the defendant. 8. It is not in dispute that the defendants are also claiming title over the suit schedule property. When such claim is made, it is clear that there is an interference by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence particularly in paragraph No.32 taken note of the spot inspection report of the Revenue Inspector for the years 1998-1989 wherein it is disclosed that the plaintiff has been enjoying 26 guntas of land since six years and found that the plaintiff had grown paddy therein. Though the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya found fault with the report of Revenue Inspector, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, was of the opinion that the plaintiff was enjoying the suit property - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25483 RSA No. 1398 of 2022 from the year 1970-71 and 1971-72. It is observed that DW.2 in his cross-examination who has been examined on behalf of the defendants, categorically admitted that the plaintiff was cultivating the land and growing paddy and also sugarcane by using VC channel water and even Appellate Court also reassessed the material available on record and in paragraph No.18 extracted the admission on the part of DW.2 and came to the conclusion that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and also considered the documents which have been placed on record before the Trial Court evidencing the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property including the order passed in LND CR No.344/1994-1995 and also the certified copy of the land grant certificate, Saguvali chit, statement of plaintiff filed before the Tahsildar, Maddur as well as the certified copy of Mahazar and also the certified copy of order passed in R.A.No.103/1986-1987 dated 30.09.1994 and so also considered certified copy of mutation Exs.P11 and P12, patta book and all these documents were considered including Exs.P14 and 15 - RTC extracts which clearly discloses that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and when such material - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25483 RSA No. 1398 of 2022 is considered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court both in respect of factual aspects and also the question of law by the first Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law and considering the facts of the case, I do not find any ground to frame substantial question of law and no substantial question of law involves in the matter, while granting relief of permanent injunction. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and hence, no interference is required. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of main appeal I.A.Nos.1/2022 and 2/2022 do not survive for consideration and same stands disposed off. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59