Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 86094 (KAR)

NOEL MONTHEIRO v. MR K.M. ESTHAPIN

RSA/374/2014 · 2025-09-15

Anant Ramanath Hegde

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36711 RSA No. 374 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 374 OF 2014 (INJ) BETWEEN: NOEL MONTHERO, AGED ABOT 35 YEARS, SON OF MR.LEO MONTHERO, RESIDING AT: NO.1/26,KAPINABAGILU, KAWKARDY VILLAGE, KOKKADA P.O, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI AJAY MELRIC NORONHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CYRIL PRASAD PAIS.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR K.M. ESTHAPIN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SON OF MR.K.J.MATHEW, RESIDING AT: KAPINA BAGILU, KAWKARDY VILLAGE, KOKKADA P.O., PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574201. 2. MR.ANANTHARAM ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, SON OF LATE RAMAKRISHNA ACHARYA, RESIDING AT: MOODABAILU HOUSE, KAWKARDY VILLAGE, KODDADA P.O., PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O/DT 29.01.2024 APPEAL AGAINST R2) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36711 RSA No. 374 of 2014 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 28.09.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.89/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., PUTTUR., D.K. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 09.07.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.84/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE PUTTUR., D.K. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for injunction. 2. The suit is filed in respect of Sy.No.153/3 measuring 41 cents situated at Kowkradi Village, Puttur Taluk, D.K. The plaintiff claims that his paternal grandfather Late Mingel Monthero was owner of the property bearing Sy.No.158/1A, 153/2B, 160/1F1B (P1) and some other properties. It is pleaded that after the demise of Mingel Monthero above properties devolved on his wife Smt. Karveena Monthero. 3. The plaintiff claims that Mingel Montero was in actual possession of the suit A schedule property i.e., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36711 RSA No. 374 of 2014 Sy.No.153/3 measuring 41 cents and he has constructed a residential house in the said property. The plaintiff claims that after the demise of his father he came in possession of the property and made improvement in the suit 'A' schedule property and he has been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property, so also was his father and the possession is well settled. 4. Plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1 claims to have purchased the suit property on 08.03.2007 from defendant No.2 and tried to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff, as such the suit is filed to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, by granting a decree of permanent injunction. The plaintiff also claims that the defendant should not forcibly dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law. 5. The defendants resisted the suit. The defendants disputed the plaintiff's contention relating to ownership of Sy.No.158/1A, 153/2B, 160/1F1B (P1) and other properties as alleged in the plaint. The plaint averment relating to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36711 RSA No. 374 of 2014 construction of residential house in the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.153/3 is also disputed. 6. The defendant took the contention that defendant No.1 purchased the suit property on 8.03.2007 from defendant No.2 under a valid registered sale deed and defendant No.1 urges that he is possession of suit A schedule property. 7. The Trial Court framed issue relating to plaintiff's settled possession over the suit schedule property. The Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and consequently dismissed the suit. 8. Before First Appellate Court the plaintiff raised the same contention, and First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff is not in possession. First Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. 9. Hence the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would urge that the plaintiff's father and his grand father were the owners of Sy.No.158/1A, 153/2B, 160/1F1B(P1) and other lands, which - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36711 RSA No. 374 of 2014 are adjacent to suit properties and thus it is his contention that the suit property is also in plaintiff's possession since long and plaintiff's predecessors have put up a construction in the suit property and their possession is settled and the settled possession cannot be disturbed without due process of law. 10. It is urged that ownership of defendant No.1 over the property is not established as except producing the registered sale deed in the name of defendant No.1 and no other title documents of the vendor-defendant No.2 from whom defendant No.1 claims to have purchased the property is produced. Thus, it is urged that defendant No.1 is not the owner of the property. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Ex.P9 and P10 would reveal that the respondent's vendor has admitted the possession of the appellant and both Courts have failed to take into consideration the settled possession of the appellant. 12. At the same time, learned counsel for the appellant, in his fairness, on instructions from the appellant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36711 RSA No. 374 of 2014 would submit after the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Court, the respondents have taken the possession from the appellant a year ago, without due process of law. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that both Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and 1st defendant's title as well as possession is duly established. As such, no substantial question of law would arise, is the submission. 14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar. 15. It appears from Ex.P9 and P10, that the vendor of the respondents has admitted the fact that the appellant's father was in possession of the property. The property is a vacant land. As already noticed, the appellants have not claimed title over the property either under any title deed or by way of any adverse possession. Both Courts have concurrently held that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the property. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36711 RSA No. 374 of 2014 16. This being the position, this Court is not inclined to restore the possession of the appellant assuming that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the present appeal. 17. And it is also not required for the Court to direct the respondents to file a suit for possession as nothing is required to be adjudicated, if any such suit is filed pursuant to direction issued by this Court. Hence, no substantial question of law is framed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG/CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 ...