Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35588
RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 772 OF 2012 (INJ)
C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 766 OF 2012 (POS)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 767 OF 2012 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2012 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2012 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 771 OF 2012 (INJ)
IN RSA NO.772/2012:
BETWEEN:
Digitally 1. SRI U V SRIDHAR s igned by S/O LATE BABU RAO @ VENKATESH RAO ALBHAGYA Location: AGED 62 YEARS High Co urt of
2. SRI U V MURALIDHAR Karnataka S/O LATE BABU RAO @ VENKATESH RAO AGE: MAJOR BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.511, S.B.M COLONY BENGALURU RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012
3. SRI NAGARAJ MIRJAKAR AGE: MAJOR MALATHESH CLOTH CENTRE GANDHINAGARA ANAVATTI VILLAGE SORAB TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT – 577429 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.V.M.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ABDUL KAREEM S/O ABDUL BASHIR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NEHRU NAGAR ANAVATIL GRAMA SORAB TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT - 577429 ... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 12.12.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.68/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., SORABA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 9.4.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.196/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., SORAB.
RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 IN RSA NO.766/2012:
BETWEEN:
SRI U V SRIDHAR S/O LATE VENKATESH @ BABU RAO AGED 66 YEARS RESIDENT OF ANAVATTI PRESENTLY R/O NO. 511 S.B.M.COLONY BANGALORE- 560050. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI V.M.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANNABASAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
2. SRI. H C HIREMUTT S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
3. SMT.CHANNABASAMMA D/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012
4. SRI. H C CHANDRAIAH S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
5. SRI. H C RAVI S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
6. SRI. H C GADIGAPPA S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BASAVESHWARA KHANAVALI ANAVATTI VILLAGE ANAVATTI HOBLI SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DIST-577429. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VEERENDRA R PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 19.1.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.38/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., SORABA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 23.2.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.222/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., SORAB.
RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 IN RSA NO.767/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI U V SRIDHAR S/O LATE BABU RAO @ VENKATESH RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. SRI. U V MURALIDHAR S/O LATE BABU RAO @ VENKATESH RAO AGE: MAJOR BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.511, S.B.M.COLONY BANGALORE
3. SRI. MADHUKAR @ MADHUKESHWARA S/O RAMAKRISHNA @ RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED 50 YEARS MADHU MEDICALS, OLD CINEMA ROAD ANAVATTI VILLAGE SORAB TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI V.M.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VEERAPPA GOWDA S/O ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 NEAR ANAVATTI BUS STAND SORABA TALUK-577429. ...RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 12.12.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.63/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., SORABA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 9.4.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.201/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., SORAB.
IN RSA NO.769/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI U V SRIDHAR S/O LATE BABU RAO @ VENKATESH AGED: 62 YEARS
2. SRI U V MURALIDHAR S/O LATE BABU RAO @ VENKATESH MAJOR BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF AT NO.511, SBM COLONY BANGALORE - 560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI V.M.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 AND:
MAHESH KAVALI S/O VEERABHADRAPPA KAVALI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: ELECTRICIAN R/O NEAR BUS STAND ANAVATTI VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 429 ...RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 12.12.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.65/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., SORABA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 9.4.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.203/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., SORAB.
IN RSA NO.770/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI U V SRIDHAR RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 S/O LATE BABU RAO @ VENKATA RAO AGED 62 YEARS
2. SRI U V MURALIDHAR S/O LATE BABU RAO @ VENKATA RAO AGE: MAJOR BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.511, SBM COLONY BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. SRI NAGARAJA MIRJAKAR AGE: MAJOR MALATHESH CLOTH CENTRE GANDHINAGARA, ANVATTI VILLAGE SORAB TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577429. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI V.M.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
REHAMAN SAB S/O KHASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NEHRU NAGAR ANAVATTI RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 SORABA TALUK – 577 429. ...RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 12.12.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.66/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., SORAB, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 9.4.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.197/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., SORAB.
IN RSA NO.771/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI U V SRIDHAR S/O LATE BABU RAO @ VENKATA RAO AGED 62 YEARS
2. SRI U V MURALIDHAR S/O LATE BABU RAO @ VENKATA RAO AGE: MAJOR BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.511, SBM COLONY BANGALORE - 560 001.
RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012
3. SRI NAGARAJA MIRJAKAR AGE: MAJOR MALATHESH CLOTH CENTRE GANDHINAGARA, ANVATTI VILLAGE SORAB TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577429. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI V.M.PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI.KIRAN S/O BASAVANYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O NEHRU NAGAR ANAVATTI VILLAGE SORAB TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577429 ...RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 12.12.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.67/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., SORAB, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 9.4.2008 RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.195/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC, SORAB.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These captioned second appeals are all interconnected appeals and have taken up together for hearing in admission.
2. RSA No.766/2012 is filed seeking possession and the connected regular second appeals arise out of a bare suit for injunction filed by various persons, who claimed to be tenants under one Veerupakshaiah Gowda.
3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.222/1994 has instituted a suit seeking relief of possession. The plaintiff in O.S.No.222/1994 contended that suit land bearing Sy. No.28, which is part of Sy. No.53, was originally owned by his father Venkatesh @ Babu Rao. The plaintiff contended that defendant, without permit, is running a RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 hotel since three years. Therefore, a notice was issued to the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit land. The present suit is filed seeking relief of possession alleging that defendant in spite of issuing legal notice has refused to hand over the vacant possession.
4. The defendants on receipt of summons contested the proceedings by filing written statement. On the contrary, they claimed that they are running hotel since 1996 and they are paying rent to one Virupakshappa Gowda. Therefore, defendants contended that they are tenants under Virupakshappa Gowda, who has executed agreement in their favour on 13.01.1986 with an assurance that when he completes transaction, he would execute the sale deed in their favour.
5. The plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court referring to rebuttal evidence let in by defendant more particularly Ex.D.1 coupled with RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 other revenue records vide Exs.D.8 to D.18 answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. The Trial Court held that plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the property and therefore, issue No.6 was answered in the negative. While answering issue No.6 in the negative, the Trial Court held that he is entitled to seek possession from the defendants.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court being a final fact finding authority has independently assessed the evidence on record. The Appellate Court referring to Ex.D.1, which is the registered sale deed, however, found that title document clearly indicates that plaintiff’s father namely Venkatesh @ Babu Rao was liable to pay Government dues to the State. Therefore, referring to the recitals in Ex.D.1, which is the registered sale deed dated 22.03.1963, the Appellate Court found that State Government through RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012 Assistant Commissioner, Sagar Sub Division, Sagar proceeded against the present suit land held by the plaintiff’s father and in a public auction, the President of the Mill namely Mallappa Gowda purchased the property in an auction, who in turn sold it to one M.H.Raju under registered sale deed dated 30.06.1956. The said M.H.Raju, in turn, sold to Veerupakshaiah Gowda under registered sale deed dated 22.03.1963 vide Ex.D.1, under whom, the present defendants are asserting lawful possession. The Appellate Court referring to the title document, which is placed on record by way of rebuttal evidence by the defendants, was also of the view that plaintiff has failed to prove his title and therefore, he is not entitled to seek possession from the defendants. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. These concurrent findings are under challenge at the instance of the plaintiff.
RSA No. 769 of 2012 RSA No. 770 of 2012 RSA No. 771 of 2012
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the defendant. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
8. Though plaintiff has filed the present suit asserting that he is the owner of the property in question and has sought possession from the defendan
