Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 766
High Court of Karnataka
K.L. MANJUNATH & A.V. CHANDRASHEKARA, JJ.
Abdulla Sab Since Deceased represented by His Lrs & Others
Versus
Mrs. Hanifa Bi & Others
Rfa No. 1756 of 2007 (DEC & INJ)
Decided On : 28-11-2013
For the Appearing Parties:M.J. Alva, Nagaraja Hegde, H.C. Shankar, M.G. Jagadeesh, K.P. Yashwanth Rao, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish clear ownership, possession, and proper identification of the disputed property in property disputes. The court also emphasized the consequences of unnecessary litigation and the imposition of costs.
Headnote:
Title Dispute - Property Dispute - Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act - Specific Relief Act - [TITLE DISPUTE] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [KARNATAKA COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, SECTION 7(2), SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT] - The court analyzed the pleadings and evidence to determine the absolute ownership and possession of the disputed property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a clear case of absolute title and possession, and the identity of the property was not properly established. The court also considered the Commissioner's report, which indicated that the property had undergone significant changes and was a fully developed layout with constructions. The court concluded that the plaintiff had unnecessarily dragged the defendants into the litigation and imposed costs on the plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree were upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the ownership and possession of 3.00 acres of land in Sy.No.5/4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore Taluk. The plaintiff claimed absolute ownership and possession based on oral partition and sale deeds, while the defendants disputed the plaintiff's claims and asserted that the property had been developed into a residential layout.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a clear case of absolute title and possession, and the identity of the property was not properly established. The court also considered the Commissioner's report, which indicated that the property had undergone significant changes and was a fully developed layout with constructions. The court concluded that the plaintiff had unnecessarily dragged the defendants into the litigation and imposed costs on the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included the establishment of absolute ownership, possession, entitlement to permanent injunction, maintainability of the suit, proper valuation, and identification of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the plaintiff to establish absolute title and possession, the lack of proper identification of the suit property, and the significant changes in the property as indicated by the Commissioner's report. The court also considered the plaintiff's inconsistent pleadings in a previous suit and imposed costs due to the unnecessary litigation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree passed in the lower court were upheld. Costs were imposed on the plaintiff.
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.
1. This appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5286/1999 which was pending at the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore. Suit filed by the plaintiffs for the reliefs of declaration of the title and consequential injunction in respect of 3.00 acres of land in Sy.No.5/4 of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore Taluk has been dismissed by a considered judgment passed by the learned XXIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.5286/1999 on 01.09.2006. It is this judgment and decree which is called in question on various grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal filed before this Court.
2. One Abdulla Sab had filed the above suit and he died during the pendency of the suit and hence his legal representatives came to be brought on record. Respondent No.1 herein was the defendant No.1 in the said suit. Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 herein are the children of the defendant No.1 and her husband, late Ameen Sab. Respondent Nos.12 to 14 herein are the partners of a firm "M/s. AMS Land Developers" who have developed residential sites in Sy. No.5/4 and respondent Nos. 16 to 18 herein were the defendant Nos.16 to 18 are the purchasers of residential sites formed in Sy.No.5/4 and respondent No.19 herein was the defendant No.19 in the said suit represented by its President.
3. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their status in the cause title of the plaint filed in O.S.No.5286/1999. It is pertinent to know the pleadings of the parties filed in the Trial Court.
4. Sri.Abdulla Sab, the deceased plaintiff's sister is Smt.Haanifa Bi, who is the defendant No.1 in the suit. Her husband was Late Ameen Sab s/o Hussain Sab of Jarakabande Kaaval of Bangalore Taluk. Deceased plaintiff Abdulla Sab and his brother-in-law Ameen Sab s/o Hussain Sab had purchased in all 12 acres of land in erstwhile Sy.No.5 of Chikkabettahalli through separate registered sale deeds from the lawful owners, the details of which are as follows:-
a) 3.00 acres of land in Sy.No.5 had been purchased by Ameen Sab from one Sri.Pothalappa vide registered sale deed dated 17.9.1953.
b) 6.00 acres of land in Sy.No.5 hand been purchased jointly by Ameen Sab and Abdulla Sab in Sy.No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 9.6.1955.
c) 3.00 acres of land in Sy.No.5 had been jointly purchased by Ameen Sab and Abdulla Sab vide sale deed dated 12.2.1971.
5. At the time, when the lands in Sy.No.5 were purchased, they had not been bifurcated by means of phodi work. According to the plaintiffs,12 acres of land purchased vide three registered sale deeds mentioned above were numbered as Sy.No.5/3 and 5/4 with 4.30 acres in Sy.No.5/3 and 7.03 acres in Sy.No.5/4. As such the total extent of these sub nos.3 and 4 of Sy.No.5 was in 11.33 acres. According to the plaintiffs, the relationship of deceased plaintiff with late Ameen Sab was very cordial and that Ameen Sab was enjoying 6 acres of land on one side and Abdulla Sab was enjoying 6 acres on the other side, by means of an oral division.
6. It is further averred that the land in Sy.No.5/3 and 5/4 were divided in terms of the boundaries as reflected in the respective sale deeds, orally. According to the plaintiffs, 6 acres of land purchased jointly vide sale deed dated 9.6.1955 was divided into two equal portions and the land came to be assigned sub No.4 in Sy.No.5 and that the eastern portion of three acres had fallen to the share of plaintiff Abdulla Sab and the western half fell to the share of Ameen Sab. According to the plaintiffs, this arrangement continued undisturbed till the death of Ameen Sab.
7. According to the plaintiffs, 6 acres of land which fell to the share of deceased Ameen Sab was in one block and was in the middle of old Sy.No.5. Thus, deceased plaintiff became the absolute owner of 3.00 acres in Sy.No.5/4 and that is the eastern portion and he was in lawful possession is the averment.
8. Since, there was i
