Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
B. VEERAPPA, J.
KRISHNAGOUDA - APPELLANT
Vs.
BASAPPA - RESPONDENT
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 5593 OF 2012 [POS]
Decided on : 08-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
Sri. B.D HEGDE & S.B. PATIL
Sri. M.C. HUKKERI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff proved ownership of the land, and the defendant failed to establish adverse possession. The court also highlighted the need for changes in the law of adverse possession to prevent illegal acquisition of land.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act, Limitation Act - The court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court, dismissing the defendant's appeal and granting possession of the suit land measuring 3 guntas to the plaintiff. The defendant's counter claim seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction was dismissed. The defendant failed to prove adverse possession and the plaintiff was held to be the owner of the disputed land. The court found that the defendant's claim of adverse possession lacked the necessary elements, and the plaintiff's evidence, including the surveyor's map, supported his ownership claim. The court also referenced legal principles from the Indian Evidence Act and the Limitation Act, and highlighted the need for changes in the law of adverse possession to prevent illegal acquisition of land.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a piece of land and alleged that the defendant had encroached upon 3 guntas of the land. The defendant denied the allegations and claimed adverse possession of the disputed land. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession. The defendant's appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had proved ownership of the land and the defendant had failed to establish adverse possession. The defendant's counter claim seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction was also dismissed. The court noted that the defendant's claim of adverse possession lacked the necessary elements, and the plaintiff's evidence, including the surveyor's map, supported his ownership claim.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff proved ownership of the land, whether the defendant proved adverse possession, and whether the defendant's counter claim was valid. The court also considered the validity of the surveyor's map and the defendant's failure to challenge it before any appellate authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had proved ownership of the land, and the defendant had failed to establish adverse possession. The court also noted that the defendant's counter claim seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction was rightly dismissed. The court referenced legal principles from the Indian Evidence Act and the Limitation Act, and highlighted the need for changes in the law of adverse possession to prevent illegal acquisition of land.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. The plaintiff was granted possession of the disputed land, and the defendant's counter claim seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction was also dismissed.
1. This is an unsuccessful defendant’s second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2011 made in RA No.25/2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol, confirming that the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2007 made in O.S. 215/2006 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Mudhol, decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, directing the defendant to handover the possession of the suit land measuring 3 guntas to the plaintiff as shown in the plaint handsketch map by red ink, within three months from the date of the judgment and the relief of declaration of ownership as well as the relief of permanent injunction as sought by the defendant are dismissed.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in OS No.215/2006 contending that he is the owner of the suit schedule property bearing RS No.98/1 measuring 9 acres 37 guntas situated at Budni BK Village. The defendant claiming to be the owner of land bearing RS No.97/2 measuring 9 acres 6 guntas of the same village and both the lands of plaintiff and defendant are adjoining. The land of the defendant is situated on the eastern side of the land of plaintiff. The plaintiff has submitted handsketch map along with the plaint, depicting the true state of things and the defendant is not in good terms with the plaintiff and he deliberately started to encroach upon the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being suspected by the activities of defendant, filed an application before the survey authorities for fixation of boundaries. Accordingly, the surveyor has surveyed the lands of the plaintiff, defendant and other neighboring land owners on 22.05.2000, in the presence of all the concerned parties and fixed the boundaries in the presence of all the parties concerned on 01.08.2000. Accordingly, he has prepared a BND Map bearing No.HUB/MDL/314/98, in which it is clearly shown that the defendant has encroached the land of plaintiff to the extent of 3 guntas which is shown by red ink in the map. It is also contended that in the month of August 2000, the plaintiff requested the defendant to handover the possession of suit land i.e., 3 guntas of land as shown in the plaint sketch by red ink, for which the defendant requested and asked for some time and subsequently, he went on prolonging for handing over the possession of suit property till now and also contended that the defendant is adamant in nature and is not ready to heed to the request of plaintiff and elderly persons. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the relief sought for.
3. The defendant filed written statement, denied all the plaint averments and admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.98/1 measuring 9 acres 37 guants of same village. It is also admitted by the defendant that the lands of the plaintiff and defendant are adjoining and that the land of defendant is situated on the eastern side of the land of plaintiff. Further, he denied that the plaintiff filed an application before the Survey authorities for fixation of boundaries and also denied that the Surveyor has surveyed the lands of the plaintiff and defendant and other neighbouring land owners on 22.05.2000 in the presence of all the concerned parties and fixed the boundaries in the presence of all the parties concerned on 01.08.2000. Further, it is denied that, accordingly P.T. sheet was prepared under No.HUB/MDL/314/98. It is also denied that defendant has encroached in the land of plaintiff to the extent of 3 guntas which is shown by red ink in the map. The plaintiff has not described the suit property clearly, so as to identify it clearly. It is specifically denied that in the month of August 2000, the plaintiff requested the defendant to handover the possession of suit land to the extent of 3 Guntas as shown in the plaint sketch by red ink. Further, it is contended that the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land measuring 3 guntas as described by the plai
