1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15^H DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

RSA.NO.200159/2014 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

UPPALPATI VENKATRAJU S/O SATHYAM

AGED ABOUT: 83 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O GAVIGATT CAMP, POST. ALDAL VILLAGE

TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. R.S.SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT RAMA BAI W/O LATE SRINIVAS RAO

AGED ABOUT: 61 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURIST & HOUSEHOLD

R/O GAVIGATT VILLAGE,

TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI AJAYA KUMAR A.K, ADVOCATE)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING

TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND

SET-ASIDE

THE

JUDGMENT

AND

DECREE

DATED:

10.05.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.16 OF 2008 BY LEARNED

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND C.J.M, RAICHUR,

REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN

O.S.NO.04 OF 2001 BY THE LEANRED CIVIL JUDGE,

(JR. DN.), MANVI, DATED:17.04.2008 AND DECREE THE

SUIT WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of judgment and decree

passed in R.A.No.16/2008 dated 10.03.2014 by the Prl.

Senior Civil Judge and CJM, at Raichur wherein the

appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and

decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) Manvi in

O.S.No.4/2001 dated 17.04.2008, wherein the suit of

the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed.

02.

The

appellant

was

the

plaintiff

and

respondent was the defendant before the Trial Court.

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be

referred as per their respective ranks before the Trial

Court in this judgment in this appeal.

03.

The

plaintiff

has

filed

suit

seeking

permanent injunction contending that he is the

absolute

owner

and

possessor

of

land

bearing

3

Sy.No.180/AA/A measuring 02 acres 32 guntas of

Gavigatt village situated within the boundaries as

shown in the plaint. He further contended that he has

purchased the said property from one Sumitrabai w/o

Narayan Rao through a registered sale deed dated

14.12.1981, since the date he is in lawful possession of

the suit property. His name is also mutated in the

record of rights. The defendant without having any

right, title or interest is trying to interfere to his

property. Hence, he has filed the suit.

04.

The

defendant

has

filed

the

written

statement contending that the vendor of the plaintiff

was not the owner of the suit property. In fact the land

belongs to one Raghavendra. He has two daughters.

After his death, his two daughters become owners of the

suit property. Therefore, the property purchased by the

plaintiff by person having no absolute title will not

convey any valid title. The defendant denied the

4

ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. The

boundaries are wrongly shown in the plaint schedule

towards southern side. In fact towards southern side

there is a land of defendant bearing Sy.No.184 totally

measuring 24 acres 02 guntas. It has come through her

ancestors. Still the southern side there is distributory

measuring 01 acre 20 guntas. Towards North-East of

the said distributory there is 02 acres 33 guntas. In fact

the Government has acquired the land for formation of

distributory after excluding the sold out portion of the

defendant, as she is owner of 09 acres 33 guntas. The

plaintiff has wrongly shown the southern boundaries as

TBP main canal to grab an extent of 02 acres 33 guntas.

So, the defendant contended that the plaintiff is not

entitled for any relief. The registered sale deed does not

convey any title to him over the suit property.

Accordingly, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

5

05.

The Trial Court has framed the issues.

Thereafter, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1

and got examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got

marked 21 documen