Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 36706
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA, J
DUNDAPPA S/O IRAPPA NARASANNAVAR – Appellant
Versus
BASAPPA S/O RAMAPPA CHOUGULA – Respondent
RSA 5271 of 2012
The courts upheld that ownership claims must be substantiated by clear evidence, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be disturbed without substantial legal questions.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Appeal against concurrent findings of fact - Plaintiff sought declaration of ownership and injunction against construction by defendant - Courts below found plaintiff failed to prove ownership and possession of property - Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1, 6, 14)
(B) Ownership and Possession - The plaintiff's claim of ownership based on a sale deed was not substantiated by evidence showing the backyard was included in the sale - The courts affirmed that the backyard was separately numbered and belonged to the defendant. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of VPC No.236 and sought to prevent the defendant from constructing on the backyard, asserting he purchased the property in 1979. The defendant contended ownership of the backyard, numbered as VPC No.236/A.
Findings of Court:
The trial and appellate courts concluded that the plaintiff did not prove ownership or possession of the backyard, affirming the defendant's rights.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff proved ownership of VPC No.236 and whether the backyard was included in the sale deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts ruled that the plaintiff's evidence did not establish ownership of the backyard, which was separately numbered, and thus the concurrent findings of fact were upheld.
Result: Regular Second Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant's claim of ownership (Para 3) |
| 2. trial court's findings (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. plaintiff failed to prove (Para 14) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)
The plaintiff is before this Court, assailing the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, wherein, the suit seeking for declaration and injunction came to be dismissed.
2. Suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of VPC No.236 and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 not to construct building in ABCD area as shown in the handsketch map. It is the case of the plaintiff that under the sale deed dated 22.02.1979 he has purchased the suit property from one Bharmappa Basavantappa Hittanagi for valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- and after the purchase of the property which includes house, courtyard, backyard, he is in possession of the same. Further, that defendant No.2 without having any right, title or interest over the said backyard and courtyard has got the name of defendant No.1 entered in the office records as VPC No.236/A. It is contended by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 on basis of the said entry is trying to construct in the said backyard, hence, the present suit for declaration of injunction.
3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement inter alia contending that the backyard belongs to defendant No.1, it is an open space and it is numbered as VPC No.236/A, which belongs to the ancestors of defendant No.1. Further, that originally VPC No.236 belongs to one Gurusiddawwa Basavanni Hittanagi, after her death, her son Bharamappa succeeded to the property and said VPC No.236 is not having any backyard. Defendant No.1 denied the plaintiff having any right, interest or title over the backyard and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is owner of entire VPC No.236 including ABCD area as shown in plaint handsketch?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of ABCD area as shown in the plaint handsketch which is measuring East-West 15 Ft North-South 14Ft?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 is causing illegal interference into the suit property i.e, ABCD area as shown in the plaint hand sketch?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he is owner of VPC No.236/A, which is situated towards Western side of the house of the plaintiff?
5. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he is entitled for the compensatory cost of Rs.5,00,000/-
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
7. What Order or Decree?”
5. In order to substantiate their claim the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, three witnesses as PWs2 to 4 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P25. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1, two witnesses as DWs2 and 3 and marked documents at Exs.D1 to D6.
6. The trial Court based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that:
(i) The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner of the entire VPC No.236 including ABCD area as shown in the handsketch map;
(ii) The plaintiff failed to prove his possession in respect of ABCD area.
(iii) Defendant No.1 is the owner of the VPC No.236/A situated towards the Western side of the house.
By the judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
7. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court while re-appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence, independently, affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved, the plaintiff is before this Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the judgment and decree of the Courts below.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of
