Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32826
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
NEELKANTHA S/O NAGAPPA BAVIN – Appellant
Versus
TRIPURAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY W/O SIDRAMA REDDY HER LRS – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7315 OF 2012 | REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7311 OF 2012 | R.A.NO.49/2008 | O.S.NO.132/1998
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI AMEETKUMAR DESHPANDE, SRI GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI
For the Respondents: SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, SRI AJAYKUMAR A.K., SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL
The court confirmed that a valid counter claim for possession does not necessitate a preliminary declaration of title if possession can be established, highlighting procedural adherence in civil disputes.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Appeal against dismissal of suit and decree in counter claim - Appellants challenged the dismissal of their suit for ownership and the counter claim for possession - Courts below held that plaintiffs failed to establish valid title over suit properties. (Paras 1, 5, 18)
(B) Substantial questions of law - The issues of counter claim amendments, possession, adverse possession, and limitation were substantial questions addressed by the Court - Issues included fairness and adherence to procedural law during trial. (Paras 8, 22, 27)
(C) Findings - The Court established that without a registered sale deed, the claim to the properties was unsubstantiated; the trial court's dismissal of the suit upheld as justifiable due to lack of clear and compelling evidence of ownership. (Paras 34, 38, 50)
(D) Ratio Decidendi - The court reiterated that a counter claim may be valid even without a preliminary declaration of title, contingent upon proof of possession by the claimant. (Paras 30, 50) (E)
Result: Appeals dismissed. Appellants granted three months for possession delivery while maintaining eligibility for further claims under applicable land reforms laws. (Paras 54, 55)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. original plaintiff sought ownership declaration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. complex ownership claims among parties. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments regarding adverse possession. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. defendants’ ownership rights challenged. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 30) |
| 5. court's emphasis on established title. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. no need for declaration in counter claim. (Para 37 , 39 , 41) |
| 7. references to land reforms act and titles. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 8. final orders and time granted for possession. (Para 55) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
These two appeals in RSA No.7311/2012 and RSA No.7315/2012 are arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.132/1998 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Raichur.
2. Plaintiff No.1 in the said suit referred to above is appellant in RSA No.7311/2012. Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 in the said suit are appellants in RSA No.7315/2012.
3. In the aforementioned suit filed by the original plaintiff-Somareddy, plaintiffs No.2 to 4 came on record as the purchasers of the properties from the plaintiff No.1-Somareddy during the pendency of the suit.
4. In the said suit, original plaintiff-Somareddy sought a declaration of ownership over the suit properties and also consequential relief of injunction. The suit is primarily filed on the premise that Somareddy purchased the suit properties on 12.12.1970 from the husband of defendant.
5. In the said suit, the defendant filed a counter claim and sought for possession of the properties. The suit is dismissed, counter claim is allowed and decree for possession is granted.
6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree in the suit as well as in the counter claim, R.A.No.35/2008 is filed by the original plaintiff-Somareddy and R.A.No.49/2008 is filed by plaintiffs No.2 to 4.
7. The said appeals before the District Judge at Raichur are dismissed and aggrieved by the judgment and decree in the original suit, and counter claim and the judgment and decree in the aforementioned Regular Appeals, the plaintiffs have filed above mentioned two appeals.
8. On 21.08.2013, RSA No.7315/2012 is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Courts below are justified in permitting the counter claim to be raised by the defendants by amending the written statement after the issues were already framed?
(ii) Whether the Courts below have failed to consider the effect of the admission given by the husband of the defendant No.1 in the Land Tribunal as per Ex.P33 and the cumulative effect of the mutation extract at Ex.24 which is based on the sale deed and the long standing entries in the revenue records showing the name of the plaintiff as having purchased the suit property under the sale deed executed by the husband of the defendant No.1?
(iii) Whether the counter claim seeking the recovery of possession when the relief of declaration is maintainable especially when the title to the property was specifically denied much prior to the seeking of the counter claim?
(iv) Whereas the Courts below are justified in decreeing the counter claim without framing proper issues as to the proof of ownership over the suit property by the defendant No.1 and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to indicate that the defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit property?
(v) Whether the lower Appellate Court has failed in its duties to re-appreciate and reassess the entire evidence on record and thereafter to give its independent finding on all the issues?
(vi) Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the purchasers/appellants herein have no right to the property purchased by them without ascertaining that the appellants are bonafide purchasers of the property for valuable consideration without notice of the litigation or defect of title?
(vii) Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the plaintiffs have not proved that they have acquired title to the schedule property by adver
