Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R. DEVDAS, J.
Linganna, Since dead by his LR Ramanna, S/o late Linganna – Appellant
Vs.
T.A.Anantharaju, S/o A Appannaiah – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3072 of 2006(DEC) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3073 of 2006(DEC)
Decided on : 29-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Smt Nalina K, Advocate for Sri S K Venkata Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri.M.B. Chandrachooda,
Headnote:SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963] - Section 37 - Suit for declaration, mandatory, injection - Reliance on revenue records and continuous possession of suit property Plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish their title to property - Revenue records showing that the property was not supporting title of plaintiff - All other revenue entries are of no consequence, once it is establish he that suit property was not granted to them, as claimed - Plaintiffs claim that the Government has made a grant in their favour is true, Ex.P.10 is a document which could have come to their rescue showing that the grant was made and a mutation in revenue records was based on said grant - In view of foregoing, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were in possession of suit property as on date of filing of suit - based on evidence of record, it cannot be presumed that the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of suit property - Therefore, their prayer for grant of relief of perpetual injunction against defendants naturally fail.
R.DEVDAS, J.
These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree passed by the Fast Track Court V, Tumakuru in RA No.47/2006 and RA No.48/2006.
2. The parties shall be referred to as ‘Plaintiffs’ and ‘Defendants’, as in the original suit.
3. O.S No.489/1991 was filed by Linganna and Abdul Sammad seeking a declaration that they are the owners of plaint ‘A’ schedule property, sought injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint ‘A’ schedule property and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the stone crusher installed in plaint ‘A’ schedule property having acquired title by way of Government grant. The plaintiffs claim that plaint ‘A’ schedule property bearing Sy.No.39 of Amalapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk measuring 27 acres 36 guntas is apportioned by way of an arrangement between plaintiff No.1 and 2. The northern portion measuring 13 acres 38 guntas which is described as plaint ‘B’ schedule property was enjoyed by plaintiff No.1 Sri.Linganna and southern portion described as plaint ‘C’ schedule property to an equal extent was enjoyed by plaintiff No.2 – Abdul Sammad. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants are committing acts of trespass on the schedule property having installed a stone crusher on the northern-western corner of the suit schedule property. It is further alleged that the defendants were making arrangements to put up a building near the stone crusher.
4. The defendants filed their written statement denying the title and ownership of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. It is contended by the defendants that the suit schedule property was never a government land, except the stone mountain situated within Sy.No.39 and the said stone mountain was sanctioned by way of lease for quarrying stones. It is stated that the government had granted Quarry Lease to many persons. It is also claimed that the defendant No.1 who was an educated and unemployed person made an application for sanction of Quarry Lease in Sy.No.35 of Tippanahalli village which is adjacent to Sy.No.39 of Amalapura. It is also averred in the written statement that one Abdul Jaleel, a close friend of plaintiffs had established a stone crushing unit in Sy.No.39 and Sy.No.35. It is further averred that when the first defendant made an application seeking quarry lease, at the instance of the plaintiffs the said Abdul Jaleel filed objections before the sanctioning authority. It is stated that the Tahsildar granted ‘No Objection Certificate’ for quarry lease, after having considered the objections filed by Abdul Jaleel. Thereafter, the Department of mines and Geology granted quarry lease to the first defendant. Subsequently, mandal panchayat also granted the license to establish the stone crushing unit. Subsequently, power connection was secured and from then on the defendants are running the stone crushing unit by employing 2030 labourers.
5. It is emphasized by the defendants that quarry activity was conducted in Sy.No.35 of Tippanahalli Village and the access to Sy.No.35, more particularly, the stone crushing unit was through the road which was formed on Sy.No.39. It is further emphasized that the defendants and other lease holders are making use of the road passing through Sy.No.39 for transport of men and material. The defendants aver that the suit was filed in order to harass the defendants out of professional jealousy and by concocting documents. The written statement categorically states that the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest in the suit schedule property and in order to harass the defendants who were using the access for carrying men and material to Sy.No.35, the plaintiffs have filed a frivolous suit and therefore sought dismissal of the suit by imposing exemplary costs.
6. The trial court framed five issues as follows:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are owners in possession of the suit properti
