Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 226
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH, J
SRI RUDRESH – Appellant
Versus
SMT ANASUYAMMA – Respondent
RSA 331/2024
SRI. SHRIDHAR NARAYAN HEGDE, SMT.G.M.SUMITHRA, SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI
In property disputes, the party claiming possession must provide credible evidence, with registered documents and revenue records prioritized over unsupported claims.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Permanent injunction - Dispute over possession of property - Plaintiffs claimed possession through a registered partition deed from 1988, asserting peaceful possession; defendant claimed ancestral possession since 1935, supported by a spot mahazar - Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found in favor of plaintiffs, affirming their possession based on revenue records and partition deed - The defendant's claims were deemed unsupported by credible evidence. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Evidence - The burden of proof lies on the party claiming possession - In civil matters, the preponderance of probabilities governs the decision - The courts evaluated the credibility of documents and testimonies, concluding the plaintiffs' case was more probable. (Paras 8-11)
(C) Legal principles - In cases of possession disputes, the courts prioritize registered documents and revenue records as evidence of rightful possession - The absence of credible evidence from the defendant undermines their claim. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, mother and son, claimed possession of property through a 1988 partition deed after the death of the husband/father, while the defendant claimed ancestral possession since 1935. The defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs' agricultural activities in 2019.
Findings of Court:
The courts upheld the plaintiffs' claims of possession based on credible evidence, including the registered partition deed and consistent revenue records.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs proved their possession and if the defendant's claims of possession were credible.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts ruled that possession must be established with credible evidence, and the plaintiffs' registered documents and revenue records were given precedence over the defendant's claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in O.S.No.127/2019 while seeking the relief of permanent injunction is that the plaintiff No.1 is the mother of plaintiff No.2 and both are residents of Channagiri Town. The plaintiffs claimed possession of the suit schedule property through one Srikantaiah G.M., who was the husband of plaintiff No.1, father of plaintiff No.2, who died on 19.06.2013 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. Plaintiffs claimed title as well as possession of NC: 2024:KHC:24768 RSA No. 331 of 2024 the suit schedule property of said Srikantaiah G.M. through a registered family partition dated 25.04.1988. The plaintiffs asserted that they are in actual, physical and peaceful possession in and over the suit schedule property and all the revenue records are standing in their names. It is contended that the defendant is stranger to the family and suit property.
He attempted to intrude in its possession in 1st June 2019 and the same was resisted. It is also contended that on 26.06.2019 at about 11.00 a.m., the defendant with his supporters came near to the suit property by laying a false claim and tried to stop the agricultural work which was being done by the plaintiff through JCB and lorry in order to plant the coconut trees. The same was resisted with all hectic efforts and they have the complaint, but the complaint yield nothing and hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.
3. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying the document of registered partition deed dated 25.04.1988 and also denied the alleged interference. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant that grand-father, father of defendant were in actual possession of suit schedule properties, since 1935. The defendant also NC: 2024:KHC:24768 RSA No. 331 of 2024 continued such possession and he also made representation before the concerned authority, in order to get some report with regard to physical possession and enjoyment.
Consequently, the competent authority did spot mahazar and gave report holding that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property within the boundaries as is mentioned in spot mahazar. It is contended that he is in possession of the suit schedule property and is growing maize crop in it and he is in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of their ancestors and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, allowed the parties to lead evidence and considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, accepted the contention of the plaintiffs that they got the property through a registered partition deed of the year 1988 and they are in continuous possession and also did not accept the contention with regard to the documents, particularly which have been produced by the defendant before the Court to evidence the fact that he in possession of the property.
NC: 2024:KHC:24768 RSA No. 331 of 2024
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.25/2023. The First Appellate Court also, having considered the grounds urged and also considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, formulated the points whether the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property, whether there is interference. The First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved that they are in possession of the property and answered the said points as ‘negative’. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant
