Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.K. Sudhindrarao, J.
Lakshmi Bai - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 1585 of 2007
Decided On : 20-02-2020
K. Chandranath Ariga, Advocate, M. Geetha, Advocate, I.G. Gachchinamath, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for plaintiffs to establish their ownership and possession over the disputed land, and the court's duty to ensure that public property is not converted into private property by unscrupulous elements.
Headnote:
JUDGMENT - Appeal - Land Dispute - Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Order, Government Tank, RMV II Stage Layout - [Kodige Chouthai Tank, Government tank, RMV II Stage Layout] - The court discussed the ownership and possession of the land in question, tracing back to the original grantee, Javanna, and subsequent changes in ownership. The court considered the orders and proceedings of various revenue authorities, including the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and the claim of the plaintiffs as absolute owners. The court also examined the acquisition of the land for the formation of RMV II Stage Layout and the denial of the plaintiffs' title by the BDA. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their ownership or possession over the land, and upheld the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of a land dispute against the Government of Karnataka and the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The dispute involved the ownership and possession of a land known as RMV II Stage Layout, which was originally claimed to be a Kodige Chouthai Tank owned by Javanna. The plaintiffs claimed to be the legal heirs of the original grantee and asserted their ownership and possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their ownership or possession over the land. The court upheld the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit, concluding that there was no irregularity, illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the trial court's decision.
Issues: The court considered various issues, including the original ownership of the land, the changes in ownership, the nature of the land as a Government tank, the denial of the plaintiffs' title by the BDA, and the bar of limitation. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership and possession of the land, and that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the plaintiffs to establish their ownership or possession over the land, as evidenced by the orders and proceedings of various revenue authorities, the acquisition of the land for the formation of RMV II Stage Layout, and the denial of the plaintiffs' title by the BDA.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs throughout, upholding the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit.
JUDGMENT
N K Sudhindrarao, J. - Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 09.03.2007 passed by the learned IX Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru in O.S.No.9426/97 wherein the suit filed by plaintiffs for declaration of title and for possession came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree plaintiffs have come in appeal.
2. The defendants are (1) The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha and (2) The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA').
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties are addressed in accordance with the rankings held by them before the trial court.
4. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.43 of Chikkamaranahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, comprising of 26 acres and 10 guntas which is the suit schedule property.
5. Plaintiff No.4 - M.G.Anantha died and suit came to be represented by 4(a) to 4(c) as legal representatives of said Anantha. However 4(c) being a minor is further represented by his mother and natural guardian N.Vijayalakshmi. Plaintiff No.1 is a widowed daughter-in-law and plaintiffs 2 and 4 are the sons of late Narasu Bai wife of late M.H.Gangadhar.
6. Plaintiffs claimed to be legal heirs of Narasu Bai and as the owners with right, title and interest over land in Sy.No.43 mentioned in the schedule to the extent of 26 acres and 10 guntas.
7. Further claims are that Kilari Javanna was the Kodigidar of Chikkamaranahalli Tank, Bangalore North Taluk as the owner of Kodigi right. He was also taking the work of repairing tank as and when it was necessary and furnish proper security therefor. The Diwan to His Highness the Maharaja of Mysuru, by his order dated 11.07.1888 which is about 132 years, directed the then Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore District to recognize Javanna as Kodigidar. As such the said Javanna was recognized to be the owner and was maintaining the tank till his death on 17.11.1903. After his death his widow and other legal heirs mortgaged the said tank and raised loan of Rs.500/- under a registered mortgage deed.
8. Mortgagee filed a suit for recovery of mortgage money in O.S.No.480/1904 in the court of the learned Munsiff, Bangalore. The said suit was decreed and the execution petition was filed in Ex.No.231/1910-11. In the court auction one Mallarappa purchased the property and got possession of the mortgaged property. Subsequently, Mallarappa the purchaser in court auction was maintaining the tank and exercising all rights of owner. He then sold the schedule land to one Gangadhar under a registered sale deed dated 22/23.01.1918. Said Gangadhar was in possession of the suit schedule property and exercising all rights of ownership. He borrowed loan from Pasumal Harbhagwandas, who filed suit against Gangadhar in O.S.No.147/1921-22 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Bangalore and the same was decreed. In the Execution case No.1366/1926-27 the schedule property belonging to Gangadhar was sold in auction. He himself purchased the schedule property and obtained possession through court on 29.07.1931. Said Harbhagwandas sold the above property to M.H.Gangadhar (who is none other than husband of Narasu Bai) and Hanumanthappa under registered sale deed dated 27.07.1939. The purchasers were in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. One Hirojappa who had purchased the rights of Hanumanthappa being represented through his legal heirs in turn sold such rights in the property to M.H.Gangadhar who was already co-owner for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed of the year 1951.
9. In the process the said M.H.Gangadhar became absolute owner of the entire extent of suit schedule property and was in possession and maintaining the tank till his death on 27.02.1955.
10. His widow Narasu Bai and sons who are respectively plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the absolute owners of the schedule prope
