Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N.K. Sudhindrarao, J.
M.C. Puttamasthi – Appellant
Versus
Lingamma – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 1746 of 2006
Decided On : 16-07-2019
S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, Adv., P.M. Siddamallappa, Adv.
Headnote:
encroachment - Property Dispute - O.S.No.202/1994 - [Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114; Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34] - The court discussed the ownership and possession of the disputed property, considering the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the defendants failed to establish their possession or ownership over the encroached area. The court also emphasized the principles of suits for declaration of title and the denial of title by the defendants. The judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court were set aside, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit claiming absolute ownership over the disputed property, alleging encroachment and unauthorized construction by the defendants. The trial court partly decreed the suit, but the first Appellate Court reversed the decision, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to establish their possession or ownership over the encroached area. It emphasized the denial of title by the defendants and the principles of suits for declaration of title. The judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court were set aside, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Issues: Ownership and possession of the disputed property, denial of title by the defendants, principles of suits for declaration of title
Ratio Decidendi: The defendants failed to establish their possession or ownership over the encroached area. The court emphasized the denial of title by the defendants and the principles of suits for declaration of title.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court were set aside, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendants were directed to quit and vacate the encroached area, clear the space, and deliver the same to the plaintiff within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
N.K. Sudhindrarao, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Ramanagaram in R.A.No.95/2005 on 18.04.2006, wherein the appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.202/1994 dated 31.8.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Channapatna, was set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Earlier, the original suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.202/1994 was partly decreed and defendants were restrained by an order of permanent injunction their agents or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'A' property and also declared that plaintiff is the absolute owner of 'B' schedule property and for possession of 'B' schedule property.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are referred in accordance with their rankings held by them before the trial court.
4. The substance of the suit filed by the plaintiffs are:
Plaintiffs Chikkamasthaiah and Puttamasthi filed a suit in O.S.NO.202/1994 claiming absolute ownership over the suit schedule properties. They claim that schedule property was purchased by the father of the 1st plaintiff-Venkata under a registered sale deed dated 25.4.1929 and are in possession of the same. First plaintiff is the father of the 2nd plaintiff. It is further contended that 1st defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant. There is no relationship of any kind between the plaintiffs and defendants.
5. Plaintiffs are the permanent residents of Mangalawarpet, Channapatna. The portion denoted by letters ABJHIMK was the site property and portion denoted as BCDEFGH was the backyard to the property bearing Door No.1955 though it was part and parcel of survey No.525 of Mangalwarpet.
6. The said backyard was phoded and renumbered as 525/2A2, 525/3 and 525/4. There is litigation between the plaintiffs and one Bojaiah in respect of survey No.525/2A2. Survey No. 525/2A is situated on the western side of the property of the plaintiffs i.e. 525/2A2. The properties are said to have been included to the Municipal jurisdiction.
7. To sum up the claim of the plaintiffs, they are the owners of the property in survey No.525 to the extent of 09 guntas and in Door No.1955 measuring 57' x 38'. It is also stated that on the eastern side of Door No.1955 there is a country tiles roofed house which is in existence even on the date of purchase by the father of the 1st plaintiff.
8. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that the defendants being powerful persons are demanding the plaintiffs to sell the portion of the schedule property to them for which they did not agree. It is further stated that because of the instigation by the defendants, Bojaiah started litigation against them. But being frustrated in not getting the property.
9. Bojaiah instigated the defendants to create trouble to the plaintiffs. It is further stated that three months prior to the date of filing of the suit, defendants have encroached the property of the plaintiffs bearing survey No.1955 and constructed a house to the extent of 10' x 10' over the property of the plaintiffs.
10. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs are permanent injunction in respect of 'A' schedule property to restrain the defendants from interfering in respect of the 'A' schedule property and for declaration of title in respect of 'B' schedule property which is stated to be a house as stated above and also for mandatory injunction in respect of 'B' schedule property to demolish the unauthorized newly constructed portion. During the pendency of the suit, 1st plaintiff is reported dead and his name is deleted as per court order dated 17.7.1989.
11. Defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and filed written statement. They denied the claim of the plaintiffs regarding own
