Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Kar) 975

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J.
Annappa Prabhu – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeeva Shetty – Respondent
R.F.A. No. 913/2005 (DEC/INJ)
Decided On : 18-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
S.Vivek Reddy, Advocate, Ravishankar, Advocate, T.Rajaram, Advocate

The court established that ownership claims based on registered sale deeds must be substantiated by clear evidence of boundaries and possession, and that the flow of title is critical in property disputes.

Headnote:
PROPERTY DISPUTE - OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION - ACT SECTION LIST - The court analyzed the ownership claims based on registered sale deeds, emphasizing the importance of boundaries and the flow of title. It interpreted the sale deeds from 1925 to 1984 to establish that Sanjeeva Shetty had a valid claim over the 12 cents of land, while the defendants failed to prove their ownership over the claimed 58 cents. The court concluded that the plaintiff's title was clear and unambiguous, leading to the dismissal of the defendants' appeal.
Fact of the Case:
Sanjeeva Shetty filed a suit against Annappa Prabhu and Manjunatha, seeking an injunction to prevent them from constructing on a disputed 10-cent property, claiming ownership through a sale deed from 1984. The defendants contended they owned the property based on earlier sale deeds from 1936 and 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found that Sanjeeva Shetty had established ownership of the property through the sale deed and was entitled to a declaration of ownership, but denied the injunction as the defendants were in possession.
Issues: 1. Did Sanjeeva Shetty establish ownership of the 12 cents of land? 2. Did he prove that the hotel and other structures were on this land? 3. Did he retain ownership after selling 2 cents to his son-in-law?
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that registered sale deeds are paramount in establishing title and that the defendants failed to prove their claims regarding the boundaries and existence of the land they asserted ownership over.
Final Decision: The appeal by Annappa Prabhu and Manjunatha was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's decision that Sanjeeva Shetty was the rightful owner of the disputed property.

JUDGMENT

1. Annappa Prabhu and his brother Manjunatha, the defendants are in appeal.

2. Sanjeeva Shetty instituted a suit seeking, initially, a decree of injunction to restrain Annappa Prabhu and his brother from digging any portion of the land bearing R.S. No.25/B-3A measuring 10 cents with a view to put up any permanent structure as additional rooms to the existing residential building under their present occupation or from trespassing in any manner to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by Sanjeeva Shetty.

3. It was his case that the suit property was acquired by him under the registered sale deed dtd. 1/3/1984 from Smt.K.Umavati and ever since he was in possession. Along with the plaint, he also produced a rough sketch and stated that as per this sketch, there was an old building in the schedule property which belonged to him and on the western corner of his property, he was running a hotel along with his son-inlaw and in the eastern corner of the suit property, Annappa Prabhu and Manjunatha were residing in the house bearing door No.5-99 for the past few years. He stated that he had permitted them to reside in the said building which had been shown as 'RH' in the rough sketch. He stated that he had permitted them to occupy the said property for a temporary period and they were thus in permissive possession and possessed no right whatsoever over the suit property.

4. It was stated that the hotel, being run by him and his son-in-law, had been shown as 'H' in the rough sketch and in between the hotel and the residential house where Annapppa Prabhu and Manjunatha were residing, there existed a textile shop which had been shown as 'TS' in the sketch.

5. He stated that to the west of the suit property, the Mangalore-Karkala Main Road was situated, and he had sold 2 cents of the land to his son-in-law Chandrahasa i.e., the portion marked as 'H' in the rough sketch.

6. He stated that there was a vacant land on the portion behind the textile shop, which had been shown as 'TS' in the annexed sketch. He stated that all the buildings situated in the suit property belonged to him. He stated that though he had been requesting Annappa Prabhu and Manjunatha to hand over possession of the residential house in their occupation, they did not handover the same and went on postponing the handing over of possession on one pretext or the other.

7. He stated that all of a sudden, they had begun to dig a portion of the vacant portion behind the textile shop with a view to erect a permanent structure and they were essentially seeking to put up additional rooms. He stated that they had no right to put up any construction since they were only in permissive occupation. He stated that since there was a serious attempt to put up the construction, he had been constrained to file the suit.

8. It may be pertinent to state here that subsequently Sanjeeva Shetty sought for a declaration that he was the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing R.S. No.25/B3-A measuring 10 cents, which he had purchased under the Sale Deed dtd. 1/3/1984, including the buildings that were situated thereon.

9. Annappa Prabhu and Manjunatha Prabhu entered appearance and filed their written statement and contested the suit. They denied all the assertions of Sanjeva Shetty.

10. They contended that there was a road which ran from South to North which was called as MangaloreMoodbidiri road. From this road, they stated that there was one more public road that branched off towards the East, which was called the School Road. They stated that abutting this Road, the disputed property was situated and abutting the Road, there were three structures i.e., Hotel Ganesh Prasad, Central Cloth Stores building and a residential building. They admitted that Hotel Ganesh Prasad was situated in an extent of 2 cents of land but contended that the other 2 buildings belonged to them absolutely.

11. They stated that they had purchased 8 cents of land under a registered Sale