Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : C.Honniah
KAMALAMMA - Appellant
Versus
KENCHE GOWDA - Respondent
Second Appeal 1235 Of 1969
Decided On : 10/08/1971
Advocates Appeared :
C.SRINIVASA VAKIL, Kadidal Manjappa, PAPANNA, T.P.Ponnappa
Mistake - Property Dispute - Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming ownership of certain lands and seeking possession and mesne profits. The trial court decreed her claim in respect of one survey number but negatived her claim in respect of another. The appellate court dismissed her suit. The litigation had been ongoing for over 47 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim of ownership and possession of the entire survey number was not supported by the evidence. The court emphasized the importance of the terms of the document under which the lands were acquired and held that the plaintiff was bound by those terms.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff became the owner with possession of the whole survey number or only to a specific extent. The court also considered the validity of the document and the plaintiff's claim of continuous possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the terms of the document, including the extent of area and assessment, prevailed over any misdescription of boundaries. It emphasized that the plaintiff was bound by the terms of the document under which she acquired the properties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court, ruling in favor of the defendants. The receiver appointed in the case was discharged.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The terms of a property document, including the extent of the area and assessment, take precedence over any misdescription of boundaries. Parties are bound by the terms of the document under which they acquire properties. (!) (!)
The court emphasized that the dominant intention of the parties was to be governed by the area and assessment specified in the original hypothecation deed, rather than boundary descriptions which could be indefinite or subject to error. (!) (!)
The evidence indicates that the lands purchased by the plaintiff, including survey number 92, were specifically identified by area (13 guntas in sub-number 2) and assessment, and not solely by boundary descriptions. The plaintiff is therefore bound by the extent of land described in the original documents. (!) (!)
The boundaries described in the documents, such as "katteboranasosi," are considered to be references to adjoining lands or general locality, rather than precise boundaries. The courts found that the description of boundaries was indefinite and secondary to the specific extent in area. (!) (!)
The evidence suggests that the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the land correspond to the specific survey number and extent she claims—namely, survey number 92/2 measuring 13 guntas—rather than the entire survey number or other areas. (!) (!)
The court held that the plaintiff could not vary the terms of the original documents through oral or extrinsic evidence, and was bound by the terms of the hypothecation deed and sale documents. Any attempt to claim more land than what was documented was not supported by the evidence. (!) (!)
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions, and discharged the receiver appointed in the case. The decision was based on the principle that the specific extent of land in the documents prevails over boundary descriptions and alleged mistakes in boundary delineation. (!) (!)
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the Plaintiff Kamalamma for a declaration that she is the owner of the suit lands and for a direction to defendants 1 to 4 to put her in possession and for mesne profits for the period prior to the suit and also for future mesne profits.
( 2 ) THE trial court negatived the claim of the plaintiff in so far as it related to Survey number 94 and decreed her claim in respect of survey number 92, the extent of which is 1-29 guntas. Against the said decision, the defendants 1 to 4 preferred an appeal in the court of the Civil judge. Bangalore which confirmed the decree of the trial court. On appeal to this Court by defendants 1 to 4, this court set aside the decree of the appellate court and remanded the case to hear the appeal afresh and dispose of the same according to law. The Civil Judge, who heard the appeal has decided against the plaintiff and dismissed her suit. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness of the decision of the appellate Court.
( 3 ) THE litigation in respect of the suit properties started as long back as 1924 between the predecessors of the present parties. It is unfortunate that the parties have fought the litigation for over 47 years and I hope now at least the litigation will come to an end.
( 4 ) THE facts that have given rise to this appeal briefly stated are these: one Chikkappaiigowda was the husband of the plaintiff and defendant 1 Patel Kenchegowda is his brother. Both the brothers hypothecated survey number 91 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas assessed at Rs. 7-8-0, survey number 92/2 measuring 13 guntas assessed at Rs. 1-8-0 and Survey number 104 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas assessed at Rs. 9-0-0 under a deed dated 18-5-1920, the certified copy of which is Exhibit IV, to one Sanieeveeowda. A perusal of the deed shows that all the three survey numbers are described as one garden, the eastern boundary being 'katteboranasosi' garden of Huchegowda, and the lane used by the villagers. Regarding the other boundaries, there is no dispute in this case and therefore, it is not necessary to mention the same. Chikkappajigowda and Patel Kenchegowda failed to discharge the debt under the deed dated 18-5-1920. Sanjeevegowda filed a suit in O. S. No. 554/23-24 on the file of the Second Munsiff. Bangalore and obtained a decree against Chikkappaji-gowda and Patel Kenchegowda,
( 5 ) IN the meanwhile, it appears, Chikkappajigowda and Patel Kenche-gowda became divided and Survey Numbers 91, 92, 94 and 104 of Patlu Village among other properties fell to the share of Patel Kenchegowda. Sanieevegowda assigned the decree in favour of one Siddegowda, brother of Kamalamma. Siddegowda executed the decree in Exn. No. 32/31-32 and brought the hypothecated lands to sale. In court sale he purchased the suit lands. On 19-10-1938. in Misc. No. 330/37-38. Siddegowda got possession of the suit lands under the delivery receipt Exhibit (A) and the sale certificate Exhibit III. The schedule given in the delivery receipt and also in the sale certificate is almost the same as given in Exhibit IV except omitting to mention the land of huchegowda as one of the eastern boundaries. Siddegowda leased out the lands to one lingegowda somewhere in the year 1940. That Lingegowda. lessee, has not been examined in this case. On 23-12-1940. Siddegowda mortgaged the lands to one Borappa under the original of exhibit VI. Borappa leased out the lands to two persons. Borappa and his lessees have also not been examined in this case.
( 6 ) THE plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption on 17-10-1941 from Siddegowda. Three years thereafter, she mortgaged the suit lands under the original of Ex. (G) dated 8-10-1944 to one Marilingegowda. Marilingeeowda filed an application under Section 83 of the Transfer of property Act (as it was then in force in the erstwhile State of Mysore) for redemption in Misc. No. 237/43-44 and obtained possession through Court. Ex. II is the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
