SMT. AROGYAMMA vs SRI FRANCIES
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1666 OF 2020 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. AROGYAMMA
W/O LATE Y JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
2. MR LAWRENCE
S/O LATE Y JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
3. MR ANTHONY SWAMY @ KANNIGA
S/O LATE Y JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. MR DANIAL
S/O LATE Y JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
5. MR JAMES
S/O LATE Y JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MARIYANNA PALYA
ARABIC COLLEGE POST
K.R PURAM, HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 045
NOW RESIDING AT HA FARM
POST, MARIYANNA PALYA
K.R. PURAM, HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 024
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.S CHANDRAHASA, ADVOCATE FOR A1, A3 & A5,
SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR A2)
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
AND:
1. SRI FRANCIES
S/O LATE DODDA ANTHONY B
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
2. SRI BORTHALAM
S/O LATE DODDA ANTHONY B
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3. SRI A ARALAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKA ANTHONY B
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
4. SRI A FRANCIS
S/O LATE CHIKKA ANTHONY B
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
5. SRI A CHOURI RAJ
SINCE DECEASED REP BY LR'S
A. MRS. SAGAYA MARY
W/O LATE A CHOURI RAJ
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
B. ANTHONY ASHA C
D/O LATE A CHOURI RAJ
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
C. PRABHU SAGAR C
S/O LATE A CHOURI RAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D. ROOPA KALA C
D/O LATE A CHOURI RAJ
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
6. SRI ANTHONY RAJ
S/O LATE AMRUTHRAJ
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.27
MARIYANA PALYA,
- 3 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
ARABIC COLLEGE POST
K.R PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 045
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R3 & R4,
R5(A-D) & R6)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 READ
WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 06.07.2020 PASSED IN OS.No.1345/2002 ON
THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 15.10.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants-
defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated
06.07.2020 passed by the XXXIX Addl City Civil and Sessions
Judge, CCH-40, Bengaluru (for short, "the Trial Court"),
whereby the Trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiffs for
permanent injunction against the defendants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The
- 4 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
appellants are the defendants and respondents are the
plaintiffs.
3. The abridged facts of the case as borne out of
pleadings are that plaintiffs are the co-owners in possession
and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy. No. 23, situated at
Dasarahalli Village, Mariyana Palya, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru
South Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring 18 guntas. According to the
plaintiffs, their ancestors, late Dodda Anthonappa and late
Chikka Anthonappa, acquired the said property from one
Anthonamma under a registered sale deed dated 08.12.1951.
Subsequent to the purchase, their ancestors applied for khatha
and bifurcation of the property. Upon such bifurcation, the
property was assigned a new survey number, namely, Sy. No.
23/8. However, only 15 guntas of land came to be entered in
the revenue records. The plaintiffs contend that their ancestors
were duly recorded and recognised as khathedars and
occupants of the property bearing Sy. No. 23/8, measuring 15
guntas, situated at Dasarahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru, which is hereinafter referred
to as “the suit schedule property”.
- 5 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs
Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of late Dodda Anthonappa, while
plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 5 are the sons of late Chikka Anthonappa.
Plaintiff No. 6 is the son of Amrutharju, who is stated to be one
of the sons of late Dodda Anthonappa. Apart from the plaintiffs,
late Dodda Anthonappa had two other sons, namely, Amruth
Raju and Bastin. The plaintiffs further contend that Amruth
Raju died leaving behind his wife and children. According to the
plaintiffs, they have succeeded to the estate of late Dodda
Anthonappa and late Chikka Anthonappa as their surviving
successors and legal heirs, including in respect of the suit
schedule property.
5. The plaintiffs contend that they have constructed
five houses on the suit schedule property and have been
residing therein for several decades. After the demise of late
Dodda Anthonappa and late Chikka Anthonappa, the khatha of
the suit schedule property was transferred to the names of the
plaintiffs and one Rosemary. The plaintiffs state that they have
constructed the aforesaid houses and are residing in the
respective houses constructed by them.
- 6 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
6. It is further contended that one Y. Joseph, the
father of the defendants and the owner of an adjacent
property, with an intention to cause damage and encroach
upon the suit schedule property, began interfering with the
plaintiffs' peaceful possession and attempted to construct a
compound wall by encroaching upon the suit schedule property.
Aggrieved by the alleged interference, the plaintiffs instituted a
suit in O.S. No. 2456/1993 before the Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, seeking the relief of permanent
injunction against the said Joseph. During the pendency of the
said suit, Joseph died, whereupon the suit was dismissed as
abated .
7. The plaintiffs further contend that late Joseph, the
father of the defendants, had earlier filed proceedings in LRF
No. 4960/1975–76 before the Land Reforms Tribunal, claiming
rights over the suit schedule property, and that the said claim
was rejected. According to the plaintiffs, the rejection of the
said claim supports their contention that neither the defendants
nor their father had any right or lawful possession over the suit
schedule property.
- 7 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
8. The plaintiffs further contend that, on 23.02.2002, the
defendants, claiming to be the children of late Joseph, began
assembling materials with the intention of constructing a wall
by encroaching upon the suit schedule property. Upon noticing
the same, the plaintiffs immediately obstructed the alleged
illegal activities of the defendants and questioned their
authority to undertake such construction. The defendants
allegedly asserted that, as the earlier suit had dismissed , they
were entitled to construct the wall at the disputed place. Having
no other alternative, the plaintiffs approached the jurisdictional
Police, namely, the K.G. Halli Police Station, and lodged a
complaint. According to the plaintiffs, although the police
assured them of protection, they advised the plaintiffs to
approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief, as
the dispute was civil in nature. Hence, the plaintiffs have
instituted the present suit in O.S. No. 1345/2002, seeking
appropriate reliefs against the defendants.
9. Upon service of summons, the defendants appeared
before the Court, and defendant No. 2 filed his written
statement contesting the suit. The defendants have contended
that the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata and that
the cause of action alleged by the plaintiffs has nothing to do
- 8 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
with the defendants. It is their further contention that the suit,
being one for the relief of bare injunction, is not maintainable.
The defendants have specifically denied the right, title, interest
and possession claimed by the plaintiffs over the suit schedule
property. They have further contended that the property
allegedly purchased by the plaintiffs under the registered sale
deed dated 08.12.1951, bearing Sy. No. 23 and measuring 18
guntas, situated at Dasarahalli Village, has no connection
whatsoever with the property claimed by the defendants,
bearing Sy. No. 23/8 and measuring 15 guntas.
10. The defendants have further contended that the
land bearing Sy. No. 23/8, measuring 1 acre 9 guntas,
originally belonged to one Mariyappa, son of Chowrappa .
According to the defendants, the said Mariyappa sold an extent
of 34 guntas out of the total extent of 1 acre 9 guntas in favour
of his sister, Smt. Susamma , under a sale deed dated
06.10.1931, marked as Ex. D-2, while retaining the remaining
extent of 15 guntas in Sy. No. 23/8. It is their further case
that, upon the demise of Mariyappa, the aforesaid remaining
extent of 15 guntas also devolved upon Smt. Susamma . The
defendants have stated that, pursuant to the phodi
proceedings, the extent of 34 guntas conveyed in favour of
- 9 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
Smt. Susamma was assigned a separate survey number,
namely, Sy. No. 23/8A.
11. The defendants have further contended that the
remaining extent of 15 guntas in Sy. No. 23/8, which had been
retained by Mariyappa, is situated on the northern side of the
extent of 34 guntas conveyed in favour of Smt. Susamma .
They have categorically denied the claim of the plaintiffs that
they have any right or are in possession of the property
described in the plaint schedule. The defendants have also
challenged the entries made in the revenue records in favour of
the plaintiffs, contending that such entries are illegal and have
no legal sanctity.
12. It is the specific defense of the defendants that, if
the plaintiffs have any property in the vicinity, the same is
situated on the northern side of the land bearing Sy. No. 23/8,
measuring 15 guntas, and that the plaintiffs, taking advantage
of the existing circumstances, are attempting to encroach upon
the property belonging to the defendants. The defendants have
asserted that they are in actual possession and enjoyment of
the land bearing Sy. No. 23/8, measuring 15 guntas, situated
- 10 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
at Dasarahalli Village. On these grounds, the defendants have
sought for dismissal of the suit.
13. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings have
framed the following issues:
i. Whether, the Plaintiffs prove that they
are in lawful possession and enjoyment
of the plaint schedule property as on the
date of suit?
ii. Whether, the Plaintiffs prove that the
Defendants are interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the Plaintiffs over the plaint schedule
property as alleged?
iii. Whether, the Plaintiffs are entitled for
the relief of permanent injunction as
sought?
iv. What order or decree?
14. Upon conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court, by its
Judgment dated 20.03.2010, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by
the said Judgment and Decree of dismissal, the plaintiffs
preferred an appeal before this Court in R.F.A. No. 573/2010.
This Court, by its Judgment and Decree, allowed the appeal and
remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration,
- 11 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
with a direction to afford an opportunity to both parties to
adduce evidence.
15. Pursuant to the order of remand, the Trial Court
recorded fresh evidence of the parties. Plaintiff No. 2 was
examined as P.W.1 on behalf of the plaintiffs, and through his
testimony, the plaintiffs got marked 89 documents as Exs. P-1
to P-89. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. 2 was
examined as D.W.1, and another witness was examined as
D.W.2. The defendants also got marked 28 documents as Exs.
D-1 to D-28. Upon completion of the recording of evidence, the
Trial Court heard the arguments advanced by both parties and,
by the Judgment and Decree impugned in the present appeal,
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
16. The Defendants on being aggrieved by the
Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court have preferred this
Appeal.
17. Heard the learned counsel Sri. K.S. Chandrahas for
appellant Nos.1, 3 and 5, learned counsel Sri. Sanath Kumar
Shetty for appellant No.2 and learned counsel Sri. Vijaykumar
K. for the respondents.
- 12 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
18. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants
contended that the suit, being one for bare injunction, could
not be decreed without establishing the identity of the suit
schedule property and the plaintiffs’ lawful possession thereof.
It was submitted that the plaintiffs trace their title to the
registered sale deed dated 08.12.1951, marked as Ex. P-14,
under which their predecessors-in-interest, Dodda Anthony and
Chikka Anthony, allegedly acquired 18 guntas in Sy. No. 23 of
Dasarahalli Village. Though the plaintiffs contend that the
property was subsequently bifurcated and assigned Sy. No.
23/8, measuring 15 guntas, the defendants have specifically
disputed the said claim and asserted that the property covered
under Ex. P-14 is distinct from the suit schedule property.
19. The learned counsel further submitted that
Mariyappa, son of Chowrappa, acquired 26 guntas under the
registered partition deed dated 14.08.1910, marked as Ex. P-
66, and subsequently purchased an additional extent of 23
guntas under Ex. D-25. Together with the other extent
attributed to him, he held 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy. No. 23, which
was assigned Sy. No. 23/8 upon phodi proceedings in 1930, as
evidenced by Exs. D-27 and D-28. Mariyappa thereafter
conveyed 34 guntas in favour of his sister, Smt. Susamma,
- 13 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
under the sale deed dated 06.10.1931, marked as Ex. D-2. The
conveyed portion was subsequently assigned Sy. No. 23/8A,
while the remaining extent of 15 guntas continued to bear Sy.
No. 23/8. According to the defendants, upon the demise of
Mariyappa, the remaining extent devolved upon Susamma, and
the defendants, being her grandchildren, succeeded to the said
property.
20. The learned counsel argued that the plaintiffs’ own
documents do not establish title to the suit schedule property.
Under Ex. P-66, Andralappa was allotted 23 guntas in Sy. No.
23. The plaintiffs’ evidence indicates that an extent of 11½
guntas was subsequently conveyed under Exs. P-67 to P-69.
However, the plaintiffs have failed to explain how their
predecessors-in-interest acquired the remaining extent
necessary to support their claim over 18 guntas. Though the
plaintiffs rely upon the proceedings in O.S. No.596/1942 and
O.S. No.390/1950-51, they have not produced sufficient
material to establish the precise extent and identity of the
property in respect of which rights were acquired in those
proceedings. Further, Ex. P-14 refers to a two-thirds share in
18 guntas, which does not, by itself, establish title to the entire
extent claimed.
- 14 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
21. It was further contended that Exs. D-27 and D-28
establish that Sy. No.23/8 had been assigned to Mariyappa’s
land in 1930, much before the execution of Ex. P-14.
Therefore, the plaintiffs’ assertion that the property purchased
under Ex. P-14 was subsequently re-designated as Sy. No.23/8
is inconsistent with the documentary evidence. It was also
pointed out that the boundaries recited in Ex. P-66 do not
correspond with those mentioned in the plaint schedule. The
learned counsel also relied upon the Gazette Notification
marked as Ex. P-65, relating to the acquisition of 34 guntas
belonging to Susamma under Sy. Nos. 23/8 and 23/8A,
contending that the notification supports the defendants’ case
regarding the identity and location of the property. It was
submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title,
the identity of the suit schedule property, and their lawful
possession thereof as on the date of the suit. Referring to the
observations made by this Court while remanding the matter,
the learned counsel argued that, in the absence of cogent
evidence establishing the identity and possession of the
property, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree of
permanent injunction and that the impugned Judgment and
Decree of the Trial Court were liable to be set aside.
- 15 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
22. He further contended that if the defendant raises a
substantial dispute regarding title, the plaintiff ought to have
sought declaration by amending the plaint or institute a
comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He disputed
the plaintiffs’ contention that paragraph No. 7 of the written
statement contains an admission of their ownership over Sy.
No. 23/8, arguing that the defendants have consistently denied
their title. It was further contended that an admission must be
clear and unambiguous to be binding and that the presumption
arising from revenue entries is rebuttable and cannot, by itself,
establish title to the property. With these submissions, he
prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned
judgment and decree.
23. To buttress his argument, he relied on the following
judgments:
1. Ambika Prasad Thakur and Otehrs vs Ram
Ekbal Rai and Others reported in AIR 1966
SC 605
2. M/s. Sodhi Transport Co. and another vs
State of U.P and another reported in AIR
1986 SC 1099
- 16 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
3. Anathula Sudhakar Reddy vs P. Buchi
Reddy and Others reported in (2008) 4
SCC 594
24. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs/respondents, supporting the impugned Judgment and
Decree, contended that the Trial Court has rightly decreed the
suit upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. He
submitted that, under the partition deed dated 14.08.1910,
marked as Ex. P-66, an extent of 23 guntas in Sy. No. 23 was
allotted to Andralappa, who subsequently conveyed 11½
guntas to Urabagilu Chowrappa under Ex. P-67. Thereafter,
Urabagilu Chowrappa’s sons conveyed the said extent to
Joojappa under Ex. P-68, who, in turn, sold it to Dodda
Anthony and Chikka Anthony under the registered sale deed
dated 26.05.1950, marked as Ex.P-69.
25. The learned counsel further submitted that
Anthoniyamma instituted O.S. No. 390/1950-51 against Dodda
Anthony, Chikka Anthony and others, which culminated in a
compromise dated 08.12.1951, marked as Ex. P-73. Pursuant
thereto, she conveyed her alleged 2/3 share in 18 guntas of Sy.
No. 23 to Dodda Anthony and Chikka Anthony under the
- 17 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
registered sale deed dated 08.12.1951, marked as Ex. P-14.
The plaintiffs claim through the said predecessors-in-interest
and contend that they have continued in possession of the suit
schedule property.
26. To establish possession, the plaintiffs relied upon
the RTC extracts (Exs. P-1 to P-8), tax-paid receipts (Exs. P-9
to P-12, P-37 to P-39 and P-79), identity documents (Exs. P-13
and P-15 to P-26), house-related documents (Exs. P-40 to P-
46) and electricity bills (Exs. P-47 to P-63). The learned counsel
submitted that these documents establish that the plaintiffs and
their family members have constructed houses and have been
residing on the suit schedule property for several decades.
27. The learned counsel further relied upon the orders
marked as Exs.P-83 and P-84, whereby the appeal preferred by
the defendants before the Assistant Commissioner and the
subsequent revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner
challenging the relevant revenue entries were dismissed. He
contended that these orders, together with the revenue
records, support the plaintiffs’ claim of possession. He also
submitted that the defendants had acknowledged in paragraph
- 18 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
No. 7 of their written statement that the plaintiffs’ property lies
to the north of Sy. No. 23/8.
28. Regarding the identity of the property, the learned
counsel relied upon the joint survey records marked as Exs. P-
30 to P-32, particularly the sketch and mahazar at Ex. P-31,
which bears the signature of D.W.2. He contended that the
survey records establishes the identification and boundaries of
the property in the plaintiffs’ possession. He further relied upon
the compromise decree in O.S. No. 390/1950-51, marked as
Ex.P-74, to contend that the boundary descriptions establish
that the plaintiffs’ property lies to the north of the property
claimed by the defendants.
29. The learned counsel also relied upon the Land
Tribunal’s order dated 16.10.1981 in LRF No. 4960/1975-76,
marked as Ex. P-80, rejecting the occupancy rights application
filed by the defendants’ father, and the subsequent appellate
proceedings. He contended that the plaintiffs had established
their lawful possession and that the defendants had failed to
demonstrate any enforceable right warranting interference with
such possession. Placing reliance upon Rame Gowda (Dead)
by LRs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu and Others , reported in
- 19 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
(2004) 1 SCC 769 , he submitted that settled possession is
entitled to protection against unlawful interference and that a
suit for permanent injunction was maintainable. Accordingly, he
sought dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the
impugned Judgment and Decree.
30. Learned counsel further relied on the following
judgments:
1. Prataprai N. Kothari vs John Braganza reported in
1999 (4) SCC 403
2. Puran Singh and Others vs State of Punjab reported
in (1975) 4 SCC 518
3. Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande vs Balakrishna
Rambharose Gupta and another reported in (2020)
19 SCC 119
4. M/s Eureka Builders vs Gulabchand and others
reported in (2018) 8 SCC 67
5. Prem Singh and others vs Birbal and Others reported
in (2006) 5 SCC 353
31. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
the points arising for our consideration is:
"i. Whether the defendants proved that
there is some apparent defect in the title of
the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule
- 20 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
property, as such bare injunction suit is not
maintainable?
ii. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are
in lawful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property and the defendants
are interfering with their lawful possession?
iii. Whether the impugned judgment and
decree suffers from any perversity or
illegality, which call for interference?”
32. In order to answer the point No.1 it is relevant to
trace the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule
property as claimed by them as under:
Document
/ Exhibit
Sl. Nature of Transaction /
Date Person / Party Extent
No Event
Partition of ancestral
properties under
Panchayath Parikath. In
Sy. No. 23, 23 Guntas
fell to the share of
Mariyappa and 23 Guntas
fell to the share of
Andralappa @ Aralappa.
Mariyappa S/o.
Chowrappa,
Andralappa @
Aralappa and
Appanna
23
Guntas Ex.P66
each
1 14.08.1910
Andralappa @
→
Aralappa
Uragabalu
Chowrappa S/o.
Joneshappa
Registered Sale Deed in
respect of portion of land
falling to the share of
Andralappa @ Aralappa.
11½
Ex.P67
Guntas
2 05.05.1915
Purchaser remained in
possession and
enjoyment of 11½
Guntas.
After Uragabalu
3
05.05.1915 Chowrappa
11½
—
Guntas
- 21 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
Uragabalu Chowrappa
died leaving behind his
sons Thomasappa and
Jonesappa as successors.
Uragabalu
→
Chowrappa
Thomasappa &
Jonesappa
Prior to
4
23.03.1948
11½
—
Guntas
Ex.P68 –
Sale
Deed,
Doc. No.
4714/47-
48
Sale of the entire extent
purchased by their
father. 11½
Guntas
Thomasappa &
→
Jonesappa
Jojappa S/o.
Chowrappa
5 23.03.1948
→
Jojappa
6 26.05.1950 Chikkaanthony &
Doddaanthony
Sale of the 11½ Guntas.
11½
Ex.P69
Guntas
Pursuant to compromise
in O.S. No. 390/50-51,
Anthoniyamma agreed to
sell her 2/3rd share out
of 18 Guntas.
2/3rd
share in
18
Guntas
Smt.
Anthoniyamma
→
Chikkaanthony
& Doddaanthony
Ex.P73 –
Compromi
se
7 08.12.1951
Ex.P14,
Doc. No.
5667/51-
52
2/3rd
share in
18
Guntas
Sale Deed executed
pursuant to the
compromise.
Smt.
Anthoniyamma
→
Chikkaanthony
& Doddaanthony
08.12.1951
8 / registered
10.12.1951
Ex.P40–
P46 and
other
document
s
Possession of the
property; subsequently,
after their demise,
possession continued
with their successors.
Suit
schedule
property
Chikkaanthony &
9 After 1951
Doddaanthony
Plaintiffs claim
continuous possession
and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property
through their
predecessors, including
the property on which
their houses are situated.
Ex.P1–
P13, P15–
P26, P37–
P46, P79
Suit
schedule
property
Plaintiffs / their
10 Present
predecessors
- 22 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
33. The above transactions and the documents marked
before the Trial Court are not seriously disputed by the
defendants. However, the primary contention of the defendants
is that the parent document of the plaintiffs is the partition
deed of the year 1910 (Ex.P66), under which the plaintiffs’
predecessor in interest, Andralappa, acquired only 23 guntas of
land in Sy.No.23. Out of the said extent, he sold only 11 and
1/2 guntas to the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs; as
such, it is not known how the plaintiffs acquired the remaining
extent of 7 and 1/2 guntas in Sy.No.23. On careful perusal of
Ex.P27, the depicts that Sy.No.23 measured 4 acres 18 guntas
and was phoded in the year 1930, and that the land belonging
to Mariyappa measuring 1 acre 9 guntas was reassigned as
Sy.No.23/8. After the sale of 34 guntas in Sy.No.23/8 in the
year 1931, further phoding was effected, and the land sold to
Susamma measuring 34 guntas upon phoding the land was
reassigned as Sy.No.23/8A, while the remaining continued to
bear the designation Sy.No.23/8. As such, the defendants'
contention that the land purchased by their predecessors in
interest as per Ex.P14 in 1951 was reassigned as Sy.No.23/8
upon phoding cannot be sustained in light of documents Ex.P27
and Ex.P28 of the years 1930 and 1931.
- 23 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
34. Additionally the document produced by the
defendants at Ex.D2, i.e., the sale deed dated 06.10.1931
executed by Mariyappa in favor of his sister Susamma, depicts
34 guntas in Sy.No.23. In the said sale deed, there is no recital
or reference regarding the source of title to Mariyappa. When
Mariyappa had rights to an extent of only 23 guntas in
Sy.No.23 as per the Ex.P66 partition deed, the question of
Mariyappa executing a sale deed in respect of 34 guntas in
favor of Susamma does not arise. Furthermore, regarding
Ex.D3 (the Record of Rights), it is clear from its contents that
the entries were made at the instance of DW.1, and it is further
mentioned that the issuing authority is not responsible
regarding the names entered in the Record of Rights and other
revenue documents.
35. Ex.D4 and Ex.D10 are the RTC extracts in respect
of Sy.No.23/8A measuring an extent of 34 guntas, whereas
Ex.D5, Ex.D8, and Ex.D9 are the RTCs for the years 1974–
1979, 1977–1980, and 1979–1984 in respect of Sy.No.23/8A
measuring an extent of 15 guntas. These exhibits pertain to
two different portions of land in Sy.No.23/8A, but the
defendants have failed to explain how the extent of land differs
across the RTCs. Likewise, Ex.D12 and Ex.D13 are the RTC
- 24 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
extracts in respect of survey number 23/8A to an extent of 34
guntas, but the letter '8A' was handwritten in Kannada. Ex.D14
is the RTC in respect of Sy.No.23/8B measuring 34 guntas for
the years 1976–1979, Ex.D16 is the RTC for the years 1977–
1980 in respect of Sy.No.23/8B measuring 34 guntas, and
Ex.D15 is the RTC in respect of Sy.No.23/8A for the years
1976–1979 to an extent of 15 guntas. As can be seen from the
above-said RTCs, it is clear that the claim made by the
defendants shifts: at one breath, their claim is in respect of
Sy.No.23/8A, and in another breath, it is over Sy.No.23/8B.
However, the measurements do not tally with each other, and
the defendants have failed to explain the same.
36. Whereas, Ex.D17 and Ex.P36 (one and the same)
i.e. IHC NO.1/1990-91, standing in the name of the plaintiffs
and the said documents are much earlier to filing of the suit
and the same prove that the plaintiffs are in possession of the
suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The
Ex.D18 and D19 are the tax paid receipts in respect of
Sy.No.23/8 & 23/8A, but the defendants have failed to say as
to how they are related to Sy.No.23/8. The Ex.D25 is the sale
deed dated 20.03.1929 in respect of Sy. No.23, measuring to
an extent of 23 guntas, the said land was purchased by one
- 25 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
Mariyappa son of Sowrappa from Yagappa. There is no recitals
with regard to origin of title in the sale deed in Ex.D25. The
defendants have not produced any document to show that how
Mariyappa got 1 acre 9 guntas of land in Sy.No.23, even as per
Ex.D2 and Ex.D25 the total extent of land is 1 acre 17 guntas
(34 guntas and 23 guntas). In the absence of non production of
documents in respect of alleged 1 acre 9 guntas of land in
Sy.No.23 an adverse inference can be drawn in respect of
Ex.D2. The Ex.D26 is the official memorandum issued from the
Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, dated
30.01.2015 and the said document cannot be taken into
consideration since Ex.D26 is subsequent to filing of the suit in
respect of the alleged 34 guntas of land.
37. Apart from the documents discussed supra on
careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.1 and DW.1, the claim of
the plaintiffs in respect of their clear title substantiates with the
following suggestions to PW.1 by the defendants and admission
of DW.1 in his cross examination. The relevant extracts of the
suggestion are as below:
“ .390/1950
ಅಸಲು ಾಾ ನಂ
ೆದರ ಅಂ ೋಣಮ ಸ ೆ
.23 18 2/3
ನಂ ರ ೇತ ಗುಂ ೆ ಜ ೕ ನ ಾಗವನು! "ೇ#ದ$ರು ಎಂದು
- 26 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
, -71 .23
ಸೂ&ಸುವ'ದು ಸ(ಯಲ * ರ +ೆಡೂ-. ನ ಸ ೆ ನಂ ರ ೇತ
18 .
ಗುಂ ೆ ಜ ೕನು ಎಂದು ನಮೂ/ಸ0ಾ1 ೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ
-14 2/3
* ಕ ಯಪತದ 4ೆಡೂ-.ನ ಯೂ ಸಹ 64ೆ7 ಎಂದು
.
ನಮೂ/ಸ0ಾ1 ೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಖ(ೕ/ ಪತ ಗಳನ:ಯ ೊಡ; ಅಂ ೋ<
2/3
ಮತು= &ಕ> ಅಂ ೋ<ರವರು ಅಂ ೋಣಮ ರವ(?ೆ ಬಂದಂತಹ
,
6AೆBಯನು! Cಾತ ಖ(ೕ/DರುEಾ=Fೆ ಎಂದು ಸೂ&ಸುವ'ದು ಸ(ಯಲ
-73
* ರ ನಮೂ/ಸ0ಾದಂತಹ FಾG ಪತ ದನ:ಯ
7 8 .
ಅಂ ೋಣಮರವ(?ೆ (ಂದ ಗುಂ ೆ ಜ ೕನು ಬಂ/ತು= ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ
-9 12 79 -47
(ಂದ ಮತು= ಕಂ ಾಯ ತುಂHದ ರIೕ/ಗಳJ ಮತು=
-63 , -40 45
(ಂದ Kದು-L H. ಮತು= ರIೕ/ಗಳJ (ಂದ
Mೕ ೋಗಳ ಕಂಡು ಬರುವ ಮ
ೆಗ#?ೆ ಸಂಬಂNDದವ'ಗಳJ ಎನು!ವ'ದು
.
ಜ
Further on perusal of the cross examination of
DW.1, he has categorically admitted as under:
“
ಮ(ಯಪ7ನ 4ಾಳ-ದ ಮ(ಯಣO ಎಂಬ ವ-P=?ೆ ಮೂರು ಜನ
,
ಗಂಡು ಮಕ>ಳJ ಇದ$ರು ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಸದ(ಯವರು ಗಳನು
, , .
ಅಂದರ ಅರಳಪ7 ಅಪ7ಣO Rೌರಪ7 ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಸದ(
1910
Rೌರಪ7 ರ ಮರಣ Tೊಂ/ದರು ಮತು= ಅವ(?ೆ
- 27 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
.
ಮ(ಯಪ7 ಎಂದು ಒಬV ಮಗ ದ$ನು ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಸದ(
ಅಂದರಅರಳಪ7 ಅಪ7ಣO ಮತು= ಮ(ಯಪ7 Aೇ("ೊಂಡು
:14.8.1910 -6
/ ರಂದು * ರಂEೆ
ೊಂಾWತ 4ಾಲು
.
K ಾಗಪತವನು! CಾX"ೊಂXದ$ರು ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ
ಾ/ಯರು ೊಡ;ಅಂEೋ ಯಮ &ಕ>ಅಂEೋ ಮತು=
ಾರಸುಾರರು ಮತು= ಾ/ಯರನು! Tೊರತು ಪYೆD ZೇFೆ
,
[ಾರು ಾರಸುಾರರು ಇರುವ'/ಲ ಾಾಸ:\=ನ ಸ ೆ
ನಂಬ] ಮತು= ಅದರ Kವರ^ೆಯ ಕು(ತು ನನ?ೆ Cಾ6\
.
ಇರುವ'/ಲ ಾದಪತದ _ೆಡೂ-.ನ ನಮೂ/ಸ0ಾದ
.
&ಕು>ಬಂ/ ಬ?ೆ` ನನ?ೆ Cಾ6\ ಇರುತ= ೆ ಾದಪತದ _ೆಡೂ-.
ನ ನಮೂ/ಸ0ಾದ ಪaವ ಪIbಮ ಮತು= ಉತ=ರದ ಚಕು>ಬಂ/
ಸ([ಾ1 ಇರುತ= ೆ ಅದFೆ ದeಣ"ೆ> ಸೂಸಮ ಮತು= ಮ(ಯಪ7
.
ರವರ ಸ:ತು= ಇರುತ= ೆ ಾಾಸ:\=ನ ದeಣ"ೆ> ಇರುವಂತಹ
ಸ:ತ=ನು! ಮ(ಯಪ7 ಂದ ಸೂಸಮ ಖ(ೕ/Dದು$ ಸೂಸಮ
ಮರಣ Tೊಂ/ದ ನಂತರ ಸದ( ಸ:ತು= ನನ! ತಂ ೆ[ಾದ
. 2002
fೋAೆg ರವ(?ೆ ಬಂ/ರುತ= ೆ ರ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣ
ಾಖಸುವ "ಾಲ"ೆ> ಸೂಸಮ ಬದುPರ ಲ ನನ! ತಂ ೆ[ಾದ
.
ಬದುPದ$ರು ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಮರಣದ ನಂತರ ಾಾಸ:\=ನ
ದeಣ"ೆ> ಇರುವ ಸ:ತು= fೋAೆg ರವ(?ೆ ಬಂ/ದ$(ಂದ ಸದ(
ಸ:ತು= fೋAೆg ರವರ ಸ:ತು= ಎಂದ ಕFೆಯು\=ದ$ರು ಎನು!ವ'ದು
- 28 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
.
ಜ ಾದಪತದ _ೆಡೂ-.ನ ದeಣ"ೆ> fೋAೆg ರವರ ಸ:ತು=
ಎಂದು ನಮೂ/ಸ0ಾ1ದು$ ಸದ( fೋAೆg ನನ! ತಂ ೆ
.
ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ
50
ಾಾಸ:ತ=ನು!
ಾನು ಸುCಾರು ವಷ ಗ#ಂದ
.
ೋಡುEಾ= ಬಂ/ರುEೆ=ೕ
ೆ ಾಾಸ:ತು= ಮೂಲತಃ ಸ ೆ
.23 , .23
ನಂ ರ ಒಂದು ಾಗ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಸದ( ಸ ೆ ನಂ
23/8 .
kೕX[ಾದ ನಂತರ ಎಂದು ಆ1ರುತ= ೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ
.23 4 .
ಸ ೆ ನಂ ರ ಒಟುn KD=ೕಣ ಎಕFೆ ಸದ( ಸ ೆ
.23 1930 . -87
ನಂ
ೇದು$ ರ kೕX[ಾ1ರುತ= ೆ *
:27.1.1930
/ ರ kೕX[ಾದ Kಷಯ"ೆ> ಸಂಬಂNDದ
. .23 8
ಾಖ0ೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಸ ೆ ನಂ ರ ಒಟುn
.
ಾಗಗoಾ1ರುತ=ೆ
ಸದ( ಅಂದರಅರಳಪ7 ?ೆ ಅಂEೋನಮ ಎಂಬ ಮಗಳJ
,
ಇದ$ಳJ ಎಂದು ಸೂ&ಸುವ'ದು ಸ(ಯಲ ಸದ( ಅಂದರಅರಳಪ7
.23
4ಾಲು K ಾಗದನ:ಯ ತನ?ೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂ ರ ಬಂದಂತಹ
11 05.05.1915
ಜ ೕ ನ ವFೆ ಗುಂಟ ಜ ೕನನು! ರಂದು
-67
* ರಂEೆ fೋ
ೊಸಪ7ನ ಮಗ Rೌರಪ7 ರವ(?ೆ CಾFಾಟ
. -67
CಾXದ$ರು ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ * ರ ನಮೂ/ಸ0ಾದ
ಸ:\=?ೆ ಸಂಬಂNDದಂEೆ ಚಕು>ಬಂ/ ಇರುತ= ೆ ಎಂದು
- 29 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
, -67
ಸೂ&ಸುವ'ದು ಸ(ಯಲ * ರಂEೆ ಖ(ೕ/Dದ ಸ:ತ=ನು!
: 23.3.1948
fೋ
ೊಸಪ7ನ ಮತು= ತಮಸಪ7 ರವರು /
-68
ರಂದು ಜೂಜಪ7 ರವ(?ೆ * ರಂEೆ CಾFಾಟ CಾXದ
, -68
Kಷಯ ನನ?ೆ ?ೊ\=ಲ * ರಂEೆ ಖ(ೕ/Dದ ಸ:ತ=ನು!
: 26.5.1950
ಜೂಜಪ7 / ರಂದು &ಕ>ಅಂEೋ ಮತು=
-69
ೊಡ;ಅಂEೋ ರವ(?ೆ * ರಂEೆ CಾFಾಟ CಾXದ
. -65 87
Kಷಯ ನನ?ೆ ?ೊ\=ಲ * (ಂದ ರ ವFೆ1ನ
ಾಖ0ೆಗಳನು!
ಾನು
ೋXರುವ'/ಲ ಮತು= ಅವ'ಗಳ ಬ?ೆ`
.
ವPೕಲರ ಮೂqಾತರ ಸಹ \#ದು"ೊಂXರುವ'/ಲ ಸದ(
-69
&ಕ>ಅಂEೋ ಮತು= ೊಡ;ಅಂEೋ * ರಂEೆ ಸ:ತ=ನು!
ಖ(ೕ/Dದ$ರು ಮತು= ಸದ( ಸ:\=ನ ಮಂಗಳrರು Tೆಂ&ನ ಮ
ೆ
, -
ಮತು= qಾ fಾಗ ಇತು= ಎಂದು ಸೂ&ಸುವ'ದು ಸ(ಯಲ *
69 ,
ಖ(ೕ/ಪತ "ೆ> fೋAೆg ಅಂEೋನಪ7 ಮತು= [ಾಗಪ7
.
ರವರುಗಳJ Aಾe ಾರFಾ1 ಸ6 CಾXರುEಾ=Fೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ
ಾ/ಯರ ತಂ ೆ Tೆಸ(?ೆ ಅದಂತಹ ಮ ೇಷನನು! ಪ I!D
.207-2008-09
ಾನು sೕಲ ನK ನಂ
ೇದ$ನು!
ಉಪK ಾ?ಾN"ಾ(ಗಳ "ಾಯ ಲಯದ ಾಖDೆ$ೕನು
ー
. 83
ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಸದ( sೕಲ ನKಯ * ಅ ೇಶ
ೕನು ಾಖDದಂತಹ sೕಲ ನKಯನು! \ರಸ>(ಸ0ಾ1 ೆ
ಎಂಬ ಪ _ೆ!?ೆ Aಾeಯು
ಾನು sೕಲ ನKಯನು! ಸ Dೆ$ೕನು
- 30 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
. -83
ಅದFೆ ಅ ೇಶದ TೊರXDದ Kಷಯ ನನ?ೆ ?ೊ\=ಲ *
ರಂEೆ TೊರXಸ0ಾದ ಅ ೇಶವನು! ಪ I!D G0ಾ N"ಾ(ಗಳ
. 193/2013-14
ಮುಂ ೆ (Kಜu *vಷu ನಂ
ೇದ$ನು!
జ
2. .
ಾಖDರುEೆ=ೕ
ೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು *vಷu ನಂ
193/2013-14
ನಮೂ/DದಂEೆ ಅ ೇಶಾ1ರುತ=ೆ
ಎನು!ವ'ದು TೊರXಸ0ಾದಂತಹ ಅ ೇಶವನು! ಪ I!D
.”
sೕಲ ನKಯನು! ಾಖDರುವ'/ಲ
38. On perusal of the above documents and evidence of
P.W-1 and D.W-1, it is unequivocally established that the
plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property.
Further Ex.P80 and P81 are undisputed documents in which the
father of the defendants had categorically admitted the
ownership of the ancestors of the plaintiffs over the suit
schedule property. Further, the plaintiffs in order to establish
their title and lawful possession have produced the title deeds
stated supra and the RTC extracts standing in their names. As
such, they have independently proved their possession and flow
of title. The DW.1 has admitted that, Mariyappa has acquired
the property through partition deed – Ex.P66, admittedly in the
partition deed ‘C’ schedule property was allotted to the share of
said Mariyappa to the extent of 23 guntas, as such, the
- 31 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
question of Mariyappa executing sale deed in respect of 34
guntas to Soosamma does not arise as discussed supra.
39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of
ANANTHULA SUDHAKAR VS B. BUCHI REDDY reported in
2008 (4) SCC 594 , held that, a cloud is said to raise over a
person’s title when some apparent defect in his title to a
property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over
it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration is the
remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the
other hand, where the plaintiff have clear title supported by
documents, if a trespass without any claim to title or an
interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff
title it does not amounts to raising a cloud over the title of the
plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for
declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient.
40. Collocating the above findings to the instant case,
the flow of title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule
property described in the chart supra and the discussion
unequivocally establishes that, the plaintiffs have acquired the
title originally under Ex.P66 dated 14.08.1910 and
subsequently Ex.P67 to P69 and Ex.P73 and Ex.P14. Further,
- 32 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
on perusal of the testimony of PW.1, the suggestion of the
defendants reveals that pursuant to the compromise in O.S
rd
No.390/1950-51 Anthoniyamma agreed to sell her 2/3 share
out of 18 guntas of land as per Ex.P73. Thus, on careful
examination of the documents and evidence discussed supra in
my considered view, the defendants failed to prove any
apparent defect in the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit
schedule property. Accordingly, I answer the point No.1 in
favour of the plaintiffs.
41. As far as the point No.2 is concerned, apart from
the admission in the oral evidence of DW.1, as per Ex.P30 to
P32, a joint survey was conducted in respect of Sy.No.23/8 on
31.10.2007 and at the time of joint survey DW.2 was also
present and he has signed the mahazar – Ex.P31 prepared by
Taluk Surveyor. As could be seen from Ex.P30 and P31, the
property is in possession of the plaintiffs and has been
demarcated and identified by the competent revenue
authorities and fixed the boundaries and prepared a sketch and
mahazar. Admittedly the said documents are not challenged by
the defendants. Additionally the plaintiffs produced Ex.P47 to
P63, the electricity bills issued by the BESCOM and the said
bills pertaining to the house of plaintiffs built over the suit
- 33 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
schedule property. A contention was raised by the learned
counsel for the defendant that, there is no mentioning of the
house in the suit schedule property, however, on perusal of the
plaint it is categorically stated that, there exists a house in the
suit schedule property. Further, the suggestion to PW.1 in the
cross examination by the defendants reads that:
ನಮ ಜ ೕ ನ ಪaವ "ೆ> "ೆ>ೕಲಪ7ನ ಮಗ [ಾಗಪ7 ರವ(?ೆ
.
Aೇ(ದ ಸ:ತು= ಇ ೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ "ೆ>ೕಲಪ7ನ ಮಗ
[ಾಗಪ7ನ ಜ ೕ ನ ದeಣ"ೆ> ಮ(ಯಪ7ರವರ ಜ ೕನು ಇ ೆ
.
ಎಂದು ಸೂ&ಸುವ'ದು ಸ(ಯಲ Aಾe ಮುಂದುವFೆದು ತಮ
.
ಜ ೕನು ಇರುವ' ಾ1 ನುX/ರುEಾ=Fೆ "ೆ>ೕಲಪ7ನ ಮಗ
[ಾಗಪ7ನ ಜ ೕ ನ ದeಣ"ೆ> ಸಮ
ಾ1 ನಮ ಜ ೕ ನ
,
ದeಣದ ಾಗ ಇರುತ= ೆ ಎಂದು ಸೂ&ಸುವ'ದು ಸ(ಯಲ
-2 8
* (ಂದ ಆ] v D ಗಳ ೊಡ; ಅಂ ೋ< ಮತು=
. 23
&ಕ> ಅಂ ೋ< ರವರ Tೆಸರುಗಳನು! ಸ ೆ ನಂ
ೆದ"ೆ>
ಸಂಬಂNDದಂEೆ ಅಕ ಮಾ1 Aೇ(DರುEೆ=ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು
, -40 45
ಸೂ&ಸುವ'ದು ಸ(ಯಲ * (ಂದ Mೕ ೋಗಳ
-23
ಕಂಡು ಬರುವ ಮ
ೆಗಳJ ಮತು= X ರ ಕಂಡು ಬರುವ
23( ) ( )
ಮ
ೆಗಳJ ಅಂದFೆ X ಎ ಮತು= H ಯನು! Tೊರತು
. -40 45
ಪXD ಒಂ ೇ ಆ1ರುತ= ೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ * (ಂದ
- 34 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
-14
Mೕ ೋಗಳ ಕಂಡು ಬರುವ ಮ
ೆಗಳನು! * ಖ(ೕ/
ಪತ ದ ನಮೂ/ಸ0ಾದ ಸ:\=ನ Cಾಣ Cಾಡ0ಾ1 ೆ
.
ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ
-73
* ರ ನಮೂ/ಸ0ಾದಂತಹ FಾG ಪತ ದನ:ಯ
7 8
ಅಂ ೋಣಮರವ(?ೆ (ಂದ ಗುಂ ೆ ಜ ೕನು ಬಂ/ತು=
. -9 12 79
ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ * (ಂದ ಮತು= ಕಂ ಾಯ
-47 -63
ತುಂHದ ರIೕ/ಗಳJ ಮತು= (ಂದ Kದು-L
, -40 45
H. ಮತು= ರIೕ/ಗಳJ * (ಂದ Mೕ ೋಗಳ
.
ಕಂಡು ಬರುವ ಮ
ೆಗ#?ೆ ಸಂಬಂNDದವ'ಗಳJ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ
Further, the admission of DW.1 in his cross examination
in that regard that,
“ : ?
ಪ _ೆ! ಾ/ಯರು ಾಾಸ:\=ನ ಮ
ೆ ಕvnD"ೊಂXರುEಾ=Fೆ
11 2/3
ಉತ=ರಃ ವFೆ ಗುಂ ೆ ಜ ೕ ನ 6AೆBಯ ಮ
ೆ
.
ಕvnD"ೊಂXರುEಾ=Fೆ
11 2/3
ಾ/ಯರು ವFೆ ಗುಂ ೆ ಜ ೕ ನ 6AೆBಯ
ಮ
ೆ ಕvnD"ೊಂXರುEಾ=Fೆ ಎನು!ವ ಕು(ತು ಸ ೆ ಾಖ0ೆಯನು!
,
Tಾಜರು ಪYೆDರುವ'/ಲ ಾ/ಯರ Tಾಗೂ ನಮ ಒ*7?ೆಯ
2007
sೕFೆ?ೆ ರ ಾಾಸ:\=ನ ಸ ೆ CಾXಸ0ಾ1ತು=
- 35 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
. -30
ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ * ಸದ( ಸ ೆ CಾXದಂತಹ ವರ/
.
Tಾಗೂ ನ ೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಸದ( ಸ ೆ ವರNwಂ/?ೆ
-31
Tಾಜರು ಪYೆಸ0ಾದಂತಹ ಪಂಚ
ಾs *
ೋಡು\=ದು$
.
ಅದರ ನನ! ಸ6 ಇರುತ= ೆ ಾಾಸ:ತು= HHಎಂ ಾ-=?ೆ
ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಾ/ಯರು HHಎಂ*?ೆ ಕಂ ಾಯ ತುಂಬುEಾ=
, 11
ಬಂ/ರುEಾ=Fೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ Aಾe ಮುಂದುವFೆದು ವFೆ
2/3
ಗುಂ ೆ ಜ ೕ ನ 6AೆBಯ ಮ
ೆ ಕvnD"ೊಂXರುEಾ=Fೆ
. -
ಮತು= ಅದ"ೆ> ಸಂಬಂNDದಂEೆ ಕಂ ಾಯ ತುಂHರುEಾ=Fೆ *
79 .
ಸದ( ಕಂ ಾಯ ತುಂHದ ರIೕ/ಗಳJ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ
-40 45
* (ಂದ k ೋಗಳ ಕಂಡುಬರುವ ಮ
ೆಗಳ
.
ಾ/ಯರು ಾಸಾ1ರುEಾ=Fೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಈಗ ಾ/ಯರು
ಕvnD"ೊಂಡಂತಹ ಮ
ೆಗ#?ೆ ೕರು ಮತು= ಚರಂX ವ-ವAೆx ಇ ೆ
. -40 45
ಎಂದು ಸೂ&ಸುವ'ದು ಸ(ಯಲ * (ಂದ
k ೋಗಳ ಕಂಡುಬರುವ ಮ
ೆಗ#?ೆ ಮ(ಯಪ7ನ4ಾಳ-
"
?ಾ ಮಪಂRಾW\ಯವರು ೕ(ನ ಸಂಪಕ ವನು! ಒದ1Dರುವ
.
Kಷಯ ನನ?ೆ ?ೊ\=ಲ
ಾನು ಕoೆದ \ಂಗಳJ ಾಾಸ:\=ನ
. -40 45
ಹ\=ರ Tೋ1 ೆ$ೕವ' * (ಂದ k ೋಗಳ
. -40
ಕಂಡುಬರುವ ಮ
ೆಗಳ ಹ\=ರ
ಾನು Tೋ1ರುವ'/ಲ *
45
(ಂದ k ೋಗಳ ಕಂಡುಬರುವ ಮ
ೆಗಳ KD=ೕಣ ನನ?ೆ
. -40 45
Tೇಳಲು ಅಗುವ'/ಲ * (ಂದ k ೋಗಳ
- 36 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
ಕಂಡುಬರುವ ಮ
ೆಗ#?ೆ ZೆAಾ>ಂನವರು Kದು-L ಸಂಪಕ ವನು!
. .23/8
ಒದ1DರುEಾ=Fೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ ಸ ೆ ನಂ
ೇದ$"ೆ>
ಸಂಬಂNDದಂEೆ ಇವ\=ನ ವFೆಗೂ ಾ/ಯ Tೆಸ(?ೆ ಪಹ<
.”
ಬರುತ= ೆ ಎನು!ವ'ದು ಜ
42. Hence, by considering the evidence of both the
parties, it clearly goes to show that, the plaintiffs are in
possession of the suit schedule property. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Ananthula Sudhakar supra, held that, in
suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from
interfering in the plaintiff's lawful possession, the plaintiff will
have to establish, as on the date of the suit, he was in lawful
possession of the suit property and the defendant tried to
interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Where the property
is a building or building with appurtenant land, there may not
be much establishing possession. The plaintiff may prove
physical or lawful possession either of himself or by him
through his family members or agents or lessees/licence. The
question of title is not an issue in such a suit though it may
arise incidentally or collaterally.
43. Further, the plaintiffs have also proved the
interference of the defendants to lawful possession of the
- 37 -
RFA No. 1666 of 2020
plaintiff over the suit schedule property, and since, the
defendants have denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the
suit schedule property and also made an attempt to interfere
with their possession in the suit schedule property.
44. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that,
the plaintiffs have established their possession and interference
by the defendants. Accordingly, I answer the second question
of law in favour of the plaintiffs.
45. In view of my answers to point Nos.1 and 2 in
favour the plaintiffs, I am of view that there is no perversity or
illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court. Hence the same needs no interefence by this Court.
Being devoid of merits the appeal is dismissed .
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS/V