http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 3594 of 2006

PETITIONER:

T. Anjanappa and Ors

RESPONDENT:

Somalingappa and Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2006

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24307-24308 of 2004)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

Leave granted.

Challenge in these appeals is to the correctness of the

judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka

High Court allowing in part two Second Appeals filed by the

respondents in the present appeals.

Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

Two appeals were filed before the High Court against the

judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Bellary in RA No.15/94 and RA No.16/94 arising out of

O.S.No.168/85 and O.S.No.286/88 respectively on the file of

Principal Munsiff, Bellary. O.S.No.168/85 was filed by the

appellants. They filed a suit for declaration of title in respect

of the suit schedule property described as a house site

measuring 25’ x 75’ pictorially described in the rough sketch

accompanying the plaint and which form part of CTS

No.373/3A/1A/2/B in Block No.XXIV, Ward No.XXII,

Devinagar, Bellary City. The plaintiffs claimed title to the

property by virtue of entries in the Municipality records. The

suit site was originally granted by Municipality to one

Thippanna in the year 1962 from whom one Siddalinagana

Gouda purchased in the year 1971 under registered sale deed.

One Narasimhappa purchased the suit property from

Siddalingana Gouda by a registered sale deed in the year

1978. The plaintiffs purchased the suit site from

Narasimhappa under Ex.P.1 on 29.5.1985, two days after

filing of the suit. It is said that the erstwhile owner

Narasimhappa had mortgaged the property in favour of

plaintiff. According to plaintiffs, the defendants had

encroached upon a portion of the suit property to an extent of

15’ x 25’, put a hutment about three years prior to the suit,

and therefore, on the strength of title the plaintiff sought for

the relief of declaration of title and possession and also sought

for injunction against the defendant not to repair or put up

any permanent structure on the suit site. The defendants filed

the written statement denying the title of the plaintiff

contending that the defendants are in possession of the

premises since the year 1969 by putting up hutment and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 6

paying tax to the municipality. The defendants also contended

that the property is a government land and they are in adverse

possession of the property. A defence was also taken that the

area has been declared as a slum area. Hence, they prayed for

dismissal of the suit.

During the pendency of O.S. No.168/85, the defendant

No.1 therein filed a suit in O.S. No.286/88. The plaint

averments are reproduction of the written statement in

O.S.No.168/85.

The trial Court dismissed the suit of T. Anjanappa, T.

Sekharam and T. Govind (plaintiffs in O.S. NO.168/85) by

rejecting claim of plaintiffs’ title to the property. The suit filed

by T. Somalingappa i.e. O.S.No.286/88 came to be allowed.

Present appellants filed two appeals against the judgment and

decree in O.S.No.168/85 and O.S.No.286/88 before the Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Bellary. In appeal, the appellate court

set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in

O.S.No.168/85 and O.S.No.286/88, upheld the title of the

plaintiffs and also granted relief of possession and thus

allowed both the appeals filed by the plaintiffs. Second Appeals

were filed challenging correctness thereof by T. Somalingappa

and Dakshyanamma.

The following substantial questions of law were

formulated at the time of admission :

1. Though the appellate Court has

concurred with the findings of the Principal

Munsiff regarding the appellant’s possession

and enjoyment of the