Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M G Uma, J.
Huchhamma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ramachandrappa Son of Late Bheemappa – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 1171 of 2022 (POS)
Decided On : 17-02-2023
P.M. Siddamallappa, Advocate, Sagar B.B., Advocate
The right to seek possession of property can be established based on ownership and permissive possession, especially when the defendants do not claim ownership.
Headnote:
ownership - property dispute - Ex.P4, Ex.D1 - The court discussed the ownership of the property in question, referring to the registered sale deed (Ex.P4) and an admitted document (Ex.D1) which permitted the defendants' parents to be in possession and enjoyment of a portion of the land. The defendants did not claim ownership and were in permissive possession. The court found that the plaintiff, as the son of the owner mentioned in Ex.D1, had the right to seek possession of the property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought possession of a farmhouse and permanent injunction against the defendants, who were relatives and had been permitted to reside on the property for a limited period. The defendants interfered with the agricultural activities and refused to vacate the premises as promised.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff had the right to seek possession of the property.
Issues: Ownership of the property, entitlement to possession and permanent injunction, validity of the plaintiff's claim
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff, as the son of the owner mentioned in an admitted document, had the right to seek possession of the property, especially as the defendants did not claim ownership and were in permissive possession.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff were confirmed.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
M G Uma, J. - Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2022 passed in RA No.6 of 2021 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court' for brevity), allowing the appeal with cost and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2021 passed in OS No.40 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by directing the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property within one month and restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of remaining 30 guntas of land in the schedule property.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff filed the suit OS No.40 of 2016 against the defendants seeking direction against them to vacate and hand over the farmhouse situated on the northern side of the suit schedule property and for grant of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule property. The schedule appended to the plaint describes the land bearing Sy.No.189/4 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas, Kattalagere Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davangere District, with a small farmhouse measuring 15x13 feet with red tiled roofing, situated on the northern side of the agricultural land, with the boundaries mentioned therein.
4. It is contended by the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of 1 acre 7 guntas of land fully described in the schedule and he had constructed the farmhouse which is referred to in the schedule. The defendants who are the relatives of the plaintiff requested him to permit them to reside in the farmhouse for a period of two years and they promised to vacate and handover the possession of the farmhouse within the said period. Therefore, the plaintiff permitted the defendants to reside in the farmhouse on humanitarian grounds.
5. It is contended that the defendants started showing hostile attitude towards the plaintiff after expiry of two years. They failed to vacate the premises as promised. They started interfering with the agricultural activities in respect of rest of the schedule property, where the plaintiff used to grow paddy crop. During last week of January 2016, the defendants made an attempt to prevent the plaintiff from carrying on the agricultural work. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants seeking the relief as stated above.
6. Defendant No.3 filed the written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. It is admitted that the plaintiff and defendants are the relatives but disputed the ownership of the plaintiff. It is submitted that late Ramappa had four sons. The first son is late Krishnappa, the husband of defendant No.1. The other children are late Huliyappa, late Thimmappa and Bhimappa who is the father of the plaintiff. During the life time of Ramappa, he was owning the schedule property and after his death, the revenue records changed in the name of Bhimappa and he was managing the family as Kartha.
7. It is contended that on 02.08.1991, the father of the plaintiff executed saguvali kararu patra in respect of northern 10 guntas, out of 1.5 acres in Sy.No.189/4 in favour of Krishnappa, the husband of defendant No.1. As per the recitals found in the saguvali kararu patra, Krishnappa and his wife Gangamma were declared to have right to enjoy the property during their life time. Accordingly, Krishnappa was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said 10 guntas of land and he constructed the residential house, where the defendants are residing. After the death of Krishnappa, defendant Nos.1 to 4 continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the schedu
