IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3599/2011

BASAVARAJ

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,

BANGALORE, KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

O R D E R

This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court

of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, allowing a Regular First

Appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short

“CPC”) and thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial

Court in a suit for declaration and possession filed by the

appellant herein.

We have heard Mr. D. Seshadri Naidu, learned senior

counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shailesh Madiyal,

learned counsel for the respondents.

The appellant herein filed a suit in O.S. No.85/1995 on

the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gulbarga,

seeking the following reliefs:

“Plaintiff claims;

1. Declaration of ownership and possession of the suit

land Sy No.111/1Aa, measuring 01 acres 12 gunte forming

part of Survey No.111/1Aa which measures 16 acres 39

gunte assessed at Rs.7-43 ps of Bramhapur Gulbarga which

is bounded in the North and South by Tar Road and in the

East and West by houses.

1

Digitally signed by

NIRMALA NEGI

Date: 2023.03.04

12:15:59 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2.

In the alternative, the price of the said suit land

Rs.3,00,000”

Briefly stated, the claim of the appellant in his suit was

that he and his ancestors held land measuring in extent of 37 acres

4 guntas in Survey No.111/1Aa of Bramhapur village Gulbarga; that

out of the said land, land of an extent of 2 acres was acquired for

the purpose of providing a gate by one M.S.K. Mills; that another

portion of the land measuring 8 acres 7 guntas was acquired by the

Government for the purpose of providing house sites to Harijans,

who had formed themselves into a Housing Society; that thereafter

M.S.K. Mills came into possession of 9 acres 38 guntas, without

ever purchasing the same from the appellant; that the name of

M.S.K. came to be entered in the Pahani Patrika to the extent of 11

acres 38 guntas; that the said Pahani Patrika was a product of

collusion between the officials of the mills and the then village

accountant; that the land of an extent of 9 acres 38 guntas

encroached by the mills was purchased by the respondents herein

namely Karnataka Housing Board; that the Karnataka Housing Board,

despite purchasing only 9 acres 38 guntas of land, held possession

of a large extent of 11 acres 12 guntas; that the respondent was

thus in unlawful occupation of an excess land measuring 1 acre 12

guntas belonging to the appellant and that therefore, there must be

a decree of declaration and recovery of possession.

The respondents/defendants admitted that they purchased

land only of the extent of 9 acres and 38 guntas and that they

neither purchased nor in possession of any land over and above,

2

9 acres 38 Guntas.

The Trial Court framed six issues as arising for

consideration, namely:

“1. Whether Plaintiff proves that he is the owner of

the suit land measuring 1 acre, 12 gunts in Survey

No.11/1Aa?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of

the same from the defendant?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that alternatively he is

entitled for the price of the land amounting to

Rs.3,00,000/-?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties?

5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

6. To what decree or order the parties are entitled to?

On Issue Nos.1 and 2, the Trial Court held that the

appellant had proved his ownership of the land measuring an extent

of 1 acre 12 guntas in Survey No.111/1Aa that therefore he is

entitled to seek recovery of possession. Accordingly, the Trial

Court decreed the suit.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial

Court, the respondents/defend