Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
Laxman S/o Satteppa Warad, Since Deceased By His Lr’s. – Appellant
Versus
Town Municipal Council – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No.3206 of 2007
Decided on : 17-11-2023
Notice - Suit Property - The Karnataka Municipalities Act, Section 284 - Summary: The court discussed the requirement of prior notice under Section 284(1) of The Karnataka Municipalities Act and its applicability to the suit property. The court highlighted that the defendant had not initiated any action against the plaintiff under the provisions of the Act, and therefore, no prior notice as required under Section 284(1) of the Act was necessary. The court referred to a previous judgment to support its interpretation of the legal provision. The substantial questions of law were answered accordingly, and the Regular Second Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction in respect of a property, alleging interference by the defendant. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claims and contended that the suit was not maintainable due to non-issuance of notice as required under Section 284 of The Karnataka Municipalities Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the suit property, and the defendant had interfered with the plaintiff's possession. The court also found that the defendant had not initiated any action against the plaintiff under the provisions of the Act, and therefore, no prior notice as required under Section 284(1) of the Act was necessary.
Issues: The issues included the ownership and possession of the suit property, interference by the defendant, and the requirement of notice under Section 284 of The Karnataka Municipalities Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 284(1) of The Karnataka Municipalities Act and the absence of any action initiated by the defendant under the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge.
JUDGMENT :
This second appeal is filled praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2007 passed in RA No.51/2005 by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jamakhandi sitting at Mudhol and confirm judgment and decree dated 28.02.2005 passed in O.S No.197/2003 by the Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Mudhol.
2. The appellant was the plaintiff and respondent was the defendant in the trial Court in O.S.No.197/2003. Parties herein are referred as per their ranks in the Trial Court.
3. The appellant-plaintiff died during pendency of this appeal, his LRs were brought on record.
4. The appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S No.197/2003 seeking the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of suit property bearing C.T.S.No.4195 measuring 342 Sq.Mtr situated at ward No.V, Mudhol having the boundaries towards East: Mudhol-Lokapur Road, towards West: Municipal Gattar, towards North: Plaintiff property bearing CTS No. 3817 and 3393 and towards South: CTS No. 3818 APMC. Along with plaint hand sketch has been enclosed which showing the topography of the suit property.
5. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the actual owner and possessor of the suit property and same has been granted to him by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur on 18.12.1986 on a privilege of consideration of his military service. The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur handed over the possession of the property to the plaintiff on 18.12.1986. The plaintiff in his suit property is running a oil mill after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authority. It is further case of the plaintiff that he wanted to construct room on the eastern side of the property which has been shown by letters ‘EAGH’ for his family use and when the said construction was in progress, the defendant surveyed the suit property through Survey Department wherein it is shown that he has encroached property marked in the sketch ‘EABF’. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant on second Saturday during evening hours with his labours trespassed the suit property and demolished the portion constructed in ‘EAGH’ portion. The plaintiff contended that the defendant has no right and interest over the suit property. With this, plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.
6. The defendant has appeared through counsel and filed written statement. The contents of written statement are total denial of plaintiff’s case. The defendant contended that issuance of prior notice as required under Section 284 of The Karnataka Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ for brevity) is mandatory and for non issuance of the same, he prayed for return of the plaint.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues;
“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the actual owner of the suit property?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he was and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of institution of the suit ?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, the defendant has interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of declaration as sought for in the plaint ?
5. Whether the plaintiff is further entitle for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for in the plaint ?
6. To what order or decree ?”
8. The plaintiff has been examined himself as PW.1 and got examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. The defendant has not led any oral evidence and not produced any documents, even learned counsel for the defendant has not cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses namely PWs.1 to 3. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides and appreciating the evidence on record has answered issue Nos.1 to 5 in the affirmative and decreed the suit. The Trial Court in view of filing I.A.No.VI by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that noti
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirement of prior notice under Section 284(1) of The Karnataka Municipalities Act and its applicability to the specifi....
Owners have the right to challenge unauthorized constructions violating building bye-laws, and the Limitation Act allows for continuance of action in such breaches.
Construction without adherence to sanctioned plans violates legal provisions and prior judgments limit contradictory claims in property disputes.
Abandonment of an earlier suit without obtaining necessary permission under Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC precludes the plaintiff from maintaining a subsequent suit on the same cause of action.
Possession of land can establish ownership rights, and failure to assert rightful ownership within the statutory period extinguishes those rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
