2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 17282
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2432 OF 2008 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. KARIYANNA,
S/O SANNA RANGAPPA,
DEAD BY LRS
SMT RATHNAMMA, (DEATH DATE: 10.08.07)
W/O LATE KARIYANNA
DEATH BY HER LRS
(a)
RANGANATHA,
S/O LATE KARIYANNA,
(b)
MANJUNATHA,
S/O LATE KARIYANNA,
(c)
HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
S/O LATE KARIYANNA,
2. KARIYANNA
S/O MUDDURANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
3. CHIKKANNA,
S/O MUDDURANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENTS OF
R/O SAILAPURA VILLAGE , NIDAGAL HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572102.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PUSPAHASA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT PALAMMA,
W/O MADAIAH,
2
2. MADAIAH,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF BELLIBATTALU VILLAGE,
NIDAGAL HOBALI, PAVAGADA TQ,
TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN: 572102.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. JAIPRAKASH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 17.12.07 PASSED IN R.A.NO 102/1990
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN), & JMFC., MADHUGIRI,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND
DECREE DTD 26.10.1990 PASSED IN OS 139/86 ON THE FILE OF
THE MUNSIFF & JMFC., PAVAGADA.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 22.09.2023, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
This
regular
second
appeal
is
filed
by
the
plaintiffs under Section 100 of CPC challenging the judgment
and decree passed in RA.No.102/1990 on the file of Civil
Judge (Sr. DVN) & JMFC, Madhugiri, dated 17.12.2007.
2.
For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before
the trial Court.
3.
The brief factual Matrix leading to the case are
that the grandfather of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff
No.2 were brothers and they got divided the scheduled
property with other properties. That plaintiff No.1 is having
1/2 share, while plaintiff No.2 is having 1/4 and plaintiff
3
Nos. 3 and 4 together having 1/4 share in the schedule
properties. There are 10 tamarind trees, 34 Honge trees in
schedule property and the said trees are planted by the
father of plaintiff Nos.1, 3 & 4 and grandfather of the
plaintiffs. The 4 trees shown by letters ABCD in the hand
sketch situated within the southern border of their land and
trees shown by letters at ABC are aged about 70 years and
another tree is aged about 15 years old. The plaintiffs are the
owners in possession of these tamarind trees and there is a
ridge in between the lands of plaintiffs and defendants. The
defendants are the owners of Sy.No.2 situated towards
South of suit survey number and they have no right, title or
interest over ABCD tamarind trees. As they have interfered
in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs have
filed
a
suit
in
O.S.No.31/1984
and
subsequently, it was withdrawn on 12.11.1986 with liberty to
file a fresh suit. Hence, they filed this suit seeking declaration
of title and possession over 4 tamarind trees situated in
Sy.No.5/2, which is shown in the hand sketch map.
4.
The defendants appeared and contested the suit
and denied the existence of the Tamarind trees in the land of
4
plaintiffs. It is the specific contention of the defendants that
there are only 7 tamarind trees in Sy No.5/2 belonging to
plaintiffs and
age
of
these
trees
is
only
35 to
40 years. They have disputed the location and possession of
schedule properties. It is contended that defendants are
enjoying the trees which are situated in their land and shown
by letters ABC and the tree shown by letter D is not at all
existing. It is asserted that these trees are planted and
raised by the father of defendant No.1 and survey sketch
was prepared by Taluk Surveyor showing location of these
tamarind trees. They admit the existence of ridge between
the two lands, but dispute the other contents and asserts
that ABC trees are situated towards South of the ridge in
Sy.No.2 and hence, they have sought for dismissal of the
suit.
5.
On the basis of these pleadings, the trial Court has
framed following five issues:
“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the
owners in possession of 4 tamarind A.B.C.D
trees and enjoying the same?
5
2. Whether
the
plaintiffs
prove
that
the
defendants are interfering with their peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the said trees?
3. Whether suit is properly valued and court fee
paid is correct?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs
sought for?
5. What order or decree?”
6.
The plaintiff Nos.1 & 4 were got examined as PW1
and PW2 and plaintiffs have placed reliance on seven
documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Thereafter, three
witnesses were examined on behalf of defendants as DW1 to
DW3. The defendants have placed reliance on Ex.D1 to
Ex.D10. The Surveyor was examined as CW1 and Ex.C1 to
Ex.C6 were marked.
7.
Issue Nos.1, 2 & 4 were answered in the
affirmative in favour of the plaintiffs, while issue No.3 is
answered as does not survive for consideration and as
such, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.
8.
Against this judgment and decree, the defendants
have approached the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madhugiri
in RA.No.102/1990. The learned Senior Civil Judge after re-
6
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence vide
judgment dated 17.12.2007, set asid