Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
Keshava Reddy S/O Hanumanth Reddy And Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Syed Raza Hashmi S/O Syed Musthafa Hasmi - Respondent
RSA NO.200201 of 2014
Decided On : 08-11-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri Ananth Jahagirdar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, Advocate
Valid documentary evidence and substantial rebuttal evidence are crucial in establishing ownership in property disputes.
Headnote:
Hakku Patra - Property Dispute - CMC Act, Section 13 - Summary: The court discussed the plaintiff's claim of possession and declaration of ownership over a disputed property, supported by Hakku Patra and assessment documents. The Appellate Court found discrepancies in the defendants' evidence and upheld the plaintiff's claim, concluding that the plaintiff had established title over the property. The judgment was based on the legal evidence presented and the lack of substantial rebuttal evidence from the defendants.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession and declaration of ownership over a disputed property, claiming lawful possession and enjoyment as the absolute owner. The defendants contested the claim, asserting ownership based on a registered gift deed and permission for construction.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Court found in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner and directing the defendants to hand over possession, based on the plaintiff's evidence of Hakku Patra, assessment documents, and lack of substantial rebuttal evidence from the defendants.
Issues: Discrepancies in ownership claims, validity of Hakku Patra, and sufficiency of evidence to establish title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of valid documentary evidence, such as Hakku Patra and assessment documents, in establishing ownership. It also highlighted the significance of substantial rebuttal evidence in property disputes.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Appellate Court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
The captioned second appeal is filed by the defendant questioning the divergent findings of the Courts below wherein plaintiff's suit which was dismissed by the Court of first instance is reversed by the Appellate Court by allowing the appeal and consequently suit is decreed declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner and defendants are directed to handover vacant possession.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff instituted suit for injunction simplicitor at the first instance alleging that he is highhandedly dispossessed. The plaintiff sought for relief of possession and declaration. The subject matter of the suit is site bearing Mpl.No12-10-62/A. The plaintiff claimed that CMC, Raichur has allotted the site in favour of plaintiff by issuing the 'Hakku Patra'. The plaintiff claimed that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment as absolute owner. The plaintiff has further alleged that defendants taking undue advantage of the fact that the site was kept vacant, tried to encroach and grab the suit property owned by the plaintiff and started highhandedly putting up construction. The plaintiff further alleged that inspite of repeated requests, the defendants have completed the construction and therefore are in unlawful possession of the suit land and hence, sought for relief of declaration and for possession.
4. The defendant No.2 tendered appearance and filed written statement and contended that he is not the owner of the suit property and claimed that it is the defendant No.3 who is the owner. The defendant No.3 appeared and filed written statement and claimed that she has acquired valid right and title pursuant to registered gift deed executed by defendant No.2 who is none other than her husband. The defendant No.3 claimed that she has put up construction after securing permission from the competent authority. Therefore, defendants claimed that plaintiff is well aware of this fact and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW.1 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-7. While defendants have let in oral evidence by examining GPA holder as DW.1 and two independent witnesses are examined. The defendants also produced documentary evidence vide Exs.D-1 to D-19.
6. The trial Court having examined oral and documentary evidence held that plaintiff is not sure about the details of suit property. Referring to relevant cross-examination and also prayer sought in the plaint, trial Court held that the plaintiff is seeking relief of possession of property bearing Mpl.No.12-10-62/A and by way of amendment, he has also sought possession of 12-10-111/117. It is in this background, trial Court has drawn adverse inference against the plaintiff and has come to conclusion that plaintiff is not sure about his property. The trial Court has given more emphasis on the fact that defendant No.3 has acquired title pursuant to gift deed executed by her husband i.e., defendant No.2. Therefore, trial Court was of the view that defendant No.3 has put up construction after securing valid permission from the authority. It is in this background, trial Court held that defendant No.1 had every right to put up construction over the suit schedule property and that she is in lawful possession pursuant to registered gift deed executed by her husband i.e., defendant No.2. On these set of reasonings, the trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the suit.
7. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, preferred appeal before the Appellate Court.
8. The Appellate Court has independently assessed oral and documentary evidence on record. The Appellate Court while discharging its statutory duty as final fact finding authority has dealt with every document. Referring to Ex.P-4, Appellate Court was of the view that CMC, Raichur has granted property under Government Scheme vide No.CMR/TAX/M
