Back
1982 Supreme(Kar) 171
Karnataka High Court
MALLAWWA - Appellant
Versus
BALAPPA - Respondent
Decided On : 08-11-82
R.S.A. : 919 of 1975
B.V.DESHPANDE, Murlidhar Rao, S.G.KULKARNI
The judgment emphasizes the significance of establishing possession and source of title in determining entitlement to an injunction for immovable property.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Agricultural Land - Land Revenue Act - [M. Kallappa Setty v. M. V. Lakshminarayana Rao (1)] - The court discussed the possession of the land, the nature of possession, and the relevance of possession in determining the entitlement to an injunction. The court emphasized the importance of establishing possession and source of title in a suit seeking a declaration of title for immovable property. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court were set aside, and a permanent injunction was granted to the plaintiff, keeping the question of title open for future proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Mallavva, filed a suit claiming ownership and possession of agricultural land. The defendant, Balappa, denied her claim and asserted his own ownership and possession of the land. The Munsiff granted a decree in favor of the plaintiff, but the Civil Judge set aside the judgment and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Civil Judge found in favor of the defendant, setting aside the Munsiff's judgment and dismissing the plaintiff's suit.
Issues: The main issues included the ownership and possession of the land, interference by the defendant, the validity of a previous decree obtained by the defendant, and the bar of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of possession and source of title in determining entitlement to an injunction for immovable property. It held that the question of title should be kept open, and a permanent injunction was granted to the plaintiff, allowing either party to establish their title in future proceedings.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the first appellate court were set aside, and a permanent injunction was granted to the plaintiff, keeping the question of title open for future proceedings.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal has arisen out of a common judgment dated 28-8-75 in r. A. Nos. 96 and 111 of 1974 on the file of the Civil Judge, Rajchur. Those two appeals had been preferred by the respondent and appellant herein respectively in that court against the judgment dated 31. 8. 74 of the Munsiff kustagi, in O. S. No. 47 of 1972 on his file.
( 2 ) APPELLANT, Mallawwa, was the plaintiff, and respondent, Balappa, was the defendant in the said suit.
( 3 ) IN the suit she had filed Mallavva had claimed the following three reliefs in respect of 8 acres 26 guntas of agricultural land comprised in Sy. No. 11/2 of Village Timmanahatti, Kushtagi taluk: (i) a declaration of her title; (ii) a permanent injunction against the defendant not to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the said land; and (iii) a direction to the authority concerned to bring her name as the owner of that land in the record of rights maintained under the Land revenue Act cancelling the name of the defendant shown therein as against this number as the kathedar.
( 4 ) HER case was and continues to be that her husband Kalakappa Hunakunti was the owner and in possession of this land till his death in 1954; that after his death she had succeeded to this land and other family properties as absolute owner and was in possession; that the defendant had absolutely no manner of right, title, or interest over this land; and that, in spite of that in collusion with the local revenue officials, had got his name entered as the pattadar in respect of this land in the concerned revenue- records andi was trying to interfere with her possession and cultivation of the same.
( 5 ) THE defendant, Balappa, resisted the suit denying the claim that Mallavva was the owner and in possession of the land and further pleaded in his written statement that he was the owner-in-possession of the same; that his father had purchased this land under an oral sale from the husband of the plaintiff in 1336f for a sum of rs. 3,000, that after the aforesaid sale, his father was in possesion and thai after his death, about 20 years ago succeeding to his estate he, the defendant, was in possession and enjoyment of the land in question in his own right; that in 1956 Mallawa had tried to interfere with his possession of the land and, therefore, he had filed a suit in O. S. No. 196/1 of 1956 claiming an injunction against her and that, on being notified she having appeared in court, had filed a written statement admitting his claim; and that, in the circumstances, she was estopped from challenging his title or possession. He had denied the allegation that, in collusion with the local revenue officials, he had got his name falsely entered in the revenue records as against this number as the owner.
( 6 ) THE plaintiff subsequently, with the permission of the court, got her plaint amended seeking an additional relief, it being, a declaration that the decree in O. S. No. 196/1 of 1956 said to have been obtained by Balappn against her was vitiated by fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation.
( 7 ) IN view of these pleadlings the learned Munsiff had framed the following seven issues:"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the lawful owner of the suit land? 2. Does she further prove that she is in lawful possession of the suit land on the date of the suit? 3. Does she further prove that the defendant caused interference as alleged?? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the decree in O. S. No. 196/1 of 1956 is void and the same is vitiated by fraud, undlue influence, and misrepresentation? 5. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for the cancellarion of decree in O. S. No. 19611 of 1956 and also for the cancellation of the entries in the revenue records? 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? 7. What decree or order?"mallavva examined herself besides examining four witnesses and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-6. The defendant examined himself and 2 witnesses on
