Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 516
High Court of Karnataka
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
Mrs. Mariamma & Another
Versus
S.N. Narendraprasad & Others
R.S.A. No. 1494 of 2010 C/W R.S.A. Nos. 1490, 1491, 1492, 1493, 1495, 1496 & 1497 of 2010 & 1971, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1392, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410 & 1411 of 2010
Decided On : 22-08-2013
For the Appellants:Sreevatsa, Sr. Counsel a/w V.K. Naik for M/s. G.S.V. Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents:T. Mohandas Shetty, Advocate.
The lower appellate court was not justified in reversing the Judgment of the trial court without reversing the finding and without even assigning the reasons for such reversal.
Headnote:
Defendants - Judgment and Decrees - R.A.Nos.206, 203 to 205, 207 to 224, 238, 258 and 259 of 2008 - The court considered substantial questions of law regarding the reversal of judgment and decree passed by the trial court without reversing the findings of fact. The plaintiffs filed suits for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial court dismissed the suits, but the lower appellate court allowed the appeals, set aside the decrees, and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit properties.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed suits for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial court dismissed the suits, but the lower appellate court allowed the appeals, set aside the decrees, and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit properties.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suits, but the lower appellate court allowed the appeals, set aside the decrees, and restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit properties.
Issues: The substantial questions of law were whether the lower appellate court was correct in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court without reversing the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and whether the findings recorded by the first appellate court to reverse the finding of the trial court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence or contrary to material evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi: The lower appellate court was not justified in reversing the Judgment of the trial court without reversing the finding and without even assigning the reasons for such reversal.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed in part by answering the substantial questions of law in favor of the appellants. The judgment and decrees passed in R.A.Nos.203 to 224, 238, 258 & 259 of 2008 by I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Mysore dated 21.04.2010 were set aside and the said appeals were remitted to the said Court for adjudication afresh keeping in mind the observations made herein above. Both parties were directed to maintain status quo, and the records were directed to be remitted back to the lower appellate Court forthwith by the Registry.
1. Defendants - 1 and 2 have filed these appeals questioning the judgment and decrees passed by the I Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Mysore in R.A.Nos.206, 203 to 205, 207 to 224, 238, 258 and 259 of 2008 on 21.04.2010 whereunder appeals filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs questioning the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.79, 80, 170, 180, 181, 182, 187, 188, 192, 214, 215, 260 to 266, 273, 274, 318 to 320, 341 and 342 of 2003 by the V Addl. I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mysore dated 17.04.2008 dismissing the 26 suits came to be allowed and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession over the suit properties in any manner came to be passed.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sri Srivatsa, learned Sr.counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V K Naik, for appellants/defendants-1 and 2 and Sri G Krishnamurthy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri T.Mohandas Shetty for respondents/plaintiffs.
3. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the lower appellate Court was correct in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court without reversing the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court?
(2) Whether the findings recorded by the first appellate Court to reverse the finding of the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence or contrary to material evidence on record?
Parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court namely, appellants as defendants and respondents as plaintiffs.
PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES:
4. Plaintiffs filed suits for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The sum and substance of the contentions raised by all the plaintiffs in their respective suits are as under:
First defendant was the owner of Sy.No.167/1 of Bogadi village, Mysore Taluk measuring 3 acres 20 guntas and she had derived title to the same under a settlement deed and she formed a private residential layout and sites of various dimensions were carved out and she executed unregistered sale deeds in their favour after receiving valuable consideration from them; Since there was prohibition for registering the sale deeds, it was not registered; Plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and 28 enjoyment of the respective sites from the date of execution of said documents; Plaintiffs had made applications with Mysore Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'MUDA') for regularization of sites and building by collecting necessary penalty; after the suit schedule sites came within the jurisdiction of Mysore City Corporation, plaintiffs also claim to have filed application for grant of holder khata and pursuant to the said applications, Engineering Section had inspected the spot and paid betterment fees and also taxes; the officials of the Mysore City Corporation had visited the spot, identified the sites and properties and new numbers were assigned; First defendant's son namely, second defendant started demanding illegal sums from plaintiffs on account of increase in the market value of the property and on account of interference with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the defendants along with their henchmen, suits in question came to be filed.
5. On service of suit summons defendants appeared and 2nd defendant filed the written statement by contending that property bearing Sy.No.167/1 situated in 29 Bogadi village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk measures 4 acres 32 guntas is the ancestral property of defendants and they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners thereof; Out of the total extent 2 acres 8 guntas came to be acquired by City Improvement Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as 'CITB'), Mysore and defendants are in p
