O LATE v. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGE ABOUT
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14302 RSA No. 111 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. V.M. VENKAESH S/O LATE V. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O UPPAKUNTE VILLAGE SUGUTUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 102. (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWARA S. SHASTRY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GURURAJ .R, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 102. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR-563 102. 4. THE TAHASILDAR KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563102 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14302 RSA No. 111 of 2021 5. RAMAKKA DEAD BY LRS NAGARAJA S/O GOPALARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O N.R. EXTENSION CHINTHAMANI TOWN, CHITHAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA-563 125.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. N. VANDANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARISHA .A.S, ADVOCATE FOR R5) --------- …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.4/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.592/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14302 RSA No. 111 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2020 passed in R.A.No.4/2018 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, and the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.592/2010 by the learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property originally belonged to the Government. The plaintiff was in unauthorised occupation by growing various crops in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff’s - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14302 RSA No. 111 of 2021 father filed an application for the grant of land before the Deputy Commissioner on 31.07.1959. The Deputy Commissioner has not considered the said application. The plaintiff’s father was in continuous possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff’s father’s name was entered in the RTC from 1970 till date. The plaintiff is paying land revenue for the suit schedule property regularly. After the demise of the plaintiff’s father on 13/3/1988 the plaintiff’ as his legal heir, succeeded to the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant No.5 colluding with defendant Nos.3 and 4, got the khata transferred in her name. Defendant No.5 is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.5 tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and to knock off the suit property by creating concocted documents. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration, and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14302 RSA No. 111 of 2021 3.1. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared through the Government Advocate, but did not contest the suit. Defendant No.6 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, contending that Munivenkatappa s/o Kempanna was the absolute owner, and kathedar in possession of the suit schedule property. He also sold the same in favour of defendant no.5 for his legal necessities. The sale deed was registered on 26.2.1973 and defendant no.5 was in possession of the suit schedule property by the registered sale deed dated 26.2.1973. Defendant no.5 bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of defendant no.6 on 11.12.1991 under a registered Will. The testator died on 01.01.2011, and after her demise, the suit property, bequeathed by defendant no.5, by testamentary succession, devolved upon defendant No.6, and he is in possession of the suit schedule property as an absolute owner. It is contended that the plaintiff, and his father, V. Munivenkatappa, are strangers to the suit schedule property, and they were never in possession of the suit schedule property. It is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14302 RSA No. 111 of 2021 contended that, Munivenkatappa S/o Kempanna is different from the plaintiffs father Sri. Munivenkatappa. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant no.6. 3.2. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1 and marked 15 documents as exhibits P.1 to P.15. On the other hand, defendant no.6 examined himself as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2, and marked 8 documents as exhibits D.1 to D.8. The trial Court, on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with cost vide judgment dated 23.11.2017. 3.4. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.592/2010, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.4/18 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar. The first Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 27.11.2020. The plaintiff, aggrieved - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14302 RSA No. 111 of 2021 by the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below, has filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri Vigneshwar S Shastri, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff. 5. Sri Vighneshwar S Shastry, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff, submits that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He submits that the plaintiff’s father was in unauthorised occupation of the suit schedule property, and the plaintiff’s father has submitted an application for regularisation of his possession. The Deputy Commissioners did not consider the said application. He submits that, after the demise of the plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff came in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14302 RSA No. 111 of 2021 7. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P.15, which is an alleged grant certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kolar, in favour of Munivenkatappa pertaining to S.No.28. A perusal of Ex.P.15 mentions that, it is a document about the Karnataka Government issued in 1969. In 1969, the State was called, as Mysore State and from 1.11.1973, the Mysore State was renamed as Karnataka. A perusal of Ex.P.15 document, creates doubt in the mind of the Court regarding its genuineness. The entire case of the plaintiff is based on Ex.P.15. Thus, Ex.P.15 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The trial Court was justified in declining to accept Ex.P.15, and has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner, and in possession of the suit schedule property. 8. The plaintiff also claims to have acquired a title by way of adverse possession, wherein the plaintiff in the pleadings has denied the defendants ownership over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, without admitting the title of the defendants, cannot claim the plea of adverse - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14302 RSA No. 111 of 2021 possession. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding against the plaintiff. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law, that arises for consideration in this appeal. 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :
Decision
ORDER i) ii) The appeal is dismissed; The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed; No order as to the costs In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.1/2021 does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly, disposed of. Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file a memo of appearance within 2 (two) weeks. SKS/rs Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE