IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE Q'? 1"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010
BEFORE
TI-E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE s.N.sATYANAR4iYA.izg_a.'._jj A'
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2122 or 2oQ5..1fiBc :3'; am »
BETWEEN :
1 . Blvluddegowda.
S / 0 Bettegowda,
Ex--Chajrman.
2. Chaiuvegowda,
S/0 Singrigowda.
3. S.Swamy, _ ' H
S/0 Singrigowdagf '
4. P.Jay;1ram_u,' '
S/0 Pape:g0wda.=._
5. De\:ar9gu, . A' '
'ofilate Childcainaiigowda.
' .Ai»1,a:fe 1\«€ajo_f"and
A Viisrsitiefi-1:.éO'f Melapura Village, '
'~Kaswaba'H'_ebhf; V
Srjrangapafiria Taluk,
IVIAVDYA DISTRICT. .. APPELLANTS.
"{I3y_.S:;iV§'M.R.Vijay Kumar, Adv.)
AND:
Puttaramegowda, 3/O igawéa
Since deceased, by his L.Rs.,
1.
Smt.Kempamma.
W/0 late Puttaramegowda.
Smt.Nagaratna,
W/0 Narayanappa,
Aged about 45 Years.
Residing at 18"" Cross,
Ramanuja Road,
MYSORE.
Srnt.Latha.
W/0 late B.Ramachandra,
Aged about 40 Years, -
Residirzg at Anehekere Beed.i.
SRIRANGAPATNA.
M.P.Ramegowc1a,"
S/0 late Putta,ran:eg%,owL:£a,s.j_p' 1 "
Aged about 39 Years.
R/0 .Me1apura Viliaggefw V
1Smt.J'anakj:;' -~ VA
Agedabout 35' Years,
_ . R/0 Y'az:_ag&nahéiAh,"'
_"_M§;soRE.v._. __
:°3§'%r:1:t;V"P:a,drna, """ H
'H.M.._Someg0w('ia,
dd " about 34 Years,
' R/o."1\/Ieidahalll.
T.1\Eara.s1pura Taluk,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
S,:i1t.1\/Iamatha,
W/0 M.D.[)evara]u,
Aged about 32 Years.
R/ 0 Yaraganahaiii,
MYSORE.
8. Vajkuntegowda,
S / 0 Docidaidegowda.
9. Bettegowda,
S / 0 Chaluvegowda.
10. Srinivasegowda,
8/ 0 Kullegowcia.
Nos.8 to 12 are resident of
Melapura Viiiage,
Kasaba Hobii, _
Srirangapatna Taiuk, ' ..
MANDYA DISTRICT.
11.. Chief Secretaryg
Govt. of Karnataigai'--
Vidhana Soudha.
BANGALORE.
12. Tahsiigiar,«.._f_'« _ 1
Srirangapéfiitnea Tal.ui::,V _ _ V V
.. RESPCNDENTS.
my i\u/I/ts.'A'V.Q..&..soe_iates,.tAd€/s.
Vfovr 1.: to 13:7} .
'1* e *':«**:_*
This Apffi-:_§11t is 'r':i_e'£iA1:un,.§i'«;~r' Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Pr {Decree dated 28.10.1999 passed in
the file of the Additional Civil Judge {Sr.Dn..),
. 0 '--« . ._ .Sri.t_fangapatn'-a.
Appeai having been heard and reserved for Judgment,
day, the Court pronounced the foliowingz
"Vi
J U D G M E N T
This second appeal is by the defendant Nos.3, 5 and 8 to 10
in O.S.No.12/1990 on the file of the Additional Civilfliudge
[Sr.Dn.), Srirangapatna, chaiienging the Judgment
dated 25.07.2995 passed in R.A.No.1/2000 on dad siefofi
Additionai District Judge, Mandya, whei*ei1’i.ttte J
Decree dated 28.10.1999 passed in o.s.i~Jsd.:1–2}’1990_._}m.,the
the Additional Ci\n’l Judge (st-.oa.),V sddaegaeatna,y§as”1–e§ers’ed.
2. For the sake of convehi.ence.”the in thisappeal are
referred to by their ranking in
3. The e;sVsentia!?facts:’fVleading to appeal are that the suit in
0.S.No.12/1Vd99(‘)«.was by one Puttarame Gowda. 8/ o
Mari Gowda, McEa;i;.t1i*a’Viiiage of Srirangapatna ‘faiuk. The
iiied by Vhim—-seeking declaration that he is the owner
Of-v.S’lli«1i.4:ii”(VCIIl Nos.1 and 2 and also for an order of
in”»,___perrna;nei1t against the defendant bios} to 12 therein,
“awiio are uresident of I\/Ieiapura Viiiage. The suit schedule item
i:\1o’s;~iiarIti’2 are agricuiturai land situated in Meiapura Village. So
No.1 is concerned, there is no dispute by any of the
“‘1
defendant regarding title, possession and enjoyment of plaintiff
over the same. The dispute is only in respect of suit schedule item
No.2, which is situated on the eastern side of suit schedule item
No. 1 and western side of cauvery riverbed.
4. Admittedly suit item No.2 is Government
Cauvery River measuring to an extent of approximately’=.:1=ac3f_e.”=
Plaintiffs case is that his family has been in posisessioti;’*-cultivation
and enjoyment of suit schedule item No’.:2_ ‘sincea.”1V’93.(:)_,. has’.
document. to show that he has paid tax Tail’-;te tax] in
respect of suit schedule No.23. ._y_the’«.years M 199933, 1939
thereafter in 1976 and subseq_uen_t1y§;V__lhids grown several
trees in the:’-,_sai_d– Hala and Neraie, the said
trees are more seventy old. it is his éase that defendant
Nos.1 to_;12 are disposed towards him, they are bent
trying to forcibly enter into suit schedule
Nosii: aindx the crops grown by him and remove the
AAVV’standing«.trees ‘form a drainage in suit schedule item No.2.
..ir1_.the”*’origi1n1a} suit, all the defendants were duly served.
ini.tia;1_iy’~r-iefenciant Nos.1, 2, it and 12 filed written statement,
I
“W:
6
I
wherein they a(lmjt.t,ed most of the averments of the plaint and
denied the allegation of being inimically disposed towards plaintiff
and making attempt to enter upon the suit schedule Item Nos}
and 2 to form drainage tliereon. it is further stated K injtheir
statement that they are peace loving people of village,_ not
joining other defendants, namely defendant l_() 3 i’n._
disturbing the possession, cniltivation genjoyme:n’t
plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 2
6. Defendant Nos.3 to 10 filedvuuseparatea written statement,
wherein they denied each every of the plaint right
from plaintiff’s claim regaifding .. ctiltivation and
enjoyment. of the s1iit.”=sci1edt1:lev—- item No.2 and also the claim of
plaintiff havirigsflpaid charges and kandayain for the years
19313, and l9l7’5_V_Van(l also planting of Honge, Hala and Nerale
2. trees byVllltlielianeestors of plaintiff in suit schedule item No.2. It is
their .sp’ecifi’e’T’case the suit schedule item No.2 is government
ll-and ideally sitaateri to be utilized for burial ground and presently
2′ ” is’beir::g used as burial ground by the villagers. It is also
tiieir cas-srthat, plaintiff is not in possession of the same. Drainage
‘i’1as_b_eer1 formed in the said land. for flow of water. Therefore, the
“”1
plaintiff is not in possession of property, question of granting
permanent injunction either against the defendants or anybody
else does not arise. They also raised objection
maintainability of suit in respect of suit schedule iteii:
g0V(3i’I}.I1’l€1’1t karab. I _
7. It is seen that subsequently plaintiff
Secretary and Tahsildar of Srirangapvatna and . 9′
14. Defendant No.13 has filed theApwi4iit_eti.._stateri1ent. yeherein in
principle the written stateinéntfiled in Similar to the
written statement filed by In addition to
that, he has also. hairing more than ten
acres of same village is not entitled for
grant of suit his favour and that he is in
I
u.na1ithorijz’e’di.occupation and possession of the suit property and
land is required for the public purpose, the
same in favour of the plaintifi’. It is also his case
that a n’c=ticeV__was.:’issued by him for eviction, which was the subject
_. _. f of /1989-90 and also an order has been passed to
–that land under Section 71 of the Land Revenue Act and to
, ml
resewe the same as burial ground for the benefit of general public
I
of Melapura Village.
8. With these rival contentions, the Trial Court prcrieeti’e§:l”‘vto
frame the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff promss “his “title. V
respect of item No.1 of sehedule
property?
2. Whether plajritifl proves was in
possession of sui.t.”prop.t_§rtiesl” vonthe date of
suit’?
[and _oei*m.ane.nt ‘i.nju_r1ctien in respect of suit
schedule _
4. 5. ‘ had issued notice to
_ «;A1efendant’s”}–3–«and 14 as required u/s.80 of
t ‘C4?-C?””v u
A Adclifiunal issues:
1. it , Vsfliether the Court fee paid is insufficient?
H Whether plaintiff proves that he has acquired
31:0 .3′
title to item No.2 of suit property by adverse
“‘1
possession’?
9. Subsequent to framing of issues, evidence was reeorded.V_by
the tnal Court. Plaintiff examined himself as _
documents, Exs.P–1 to P~17. On behalf of V.
witnesses were examined and Exs.D–1 the
said proceedings, certain documents were aiso”sumna’oi:1.ed froin tiie” ,
Government and the same were as to¥§C~9. On
appreciation of documents ‘recorded the Trial
Court, the Trial Court’Nos.I to 3 in the
afiirinative, issue Noéiligin’ w.in_V:£*espect of additional
issue No.1 decla£ing:’4th.alt”:’it for consideration and
while answering’ in the negative, partly
decreed th(3:zs.I’Ju”‘t as the owner in possession
of suit schedule~..ite::n granting permanent injunction
defendant VNGs…1~to 12 only from distprbing his peaceful
poss’essi’on_ ands en_io3rment of suit schedule item No.1. Regarding
gpsuit schedule declaration of title and also consequential
relief of perinanent inj unetion was dismissed.
110;? Piaintifi challenged the same in R.A.No.1/2000. In the said
V” proceedings, though all the defendants were served. oniy
“W1
E O
respondent. Nos.3, 5, 8 to 10, 13 and 14 appeared through counsel,
respondent. Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 1.1 and 12 remained absent. After
I
securing the entire Trial Court records, the First Appellate Court
proceeded to frame the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff/appellant has pro3.ze__ri”u.
that he was in possession and enjoymestt’ of
the suit schedule property.’ __for _-‘o\ker.:’_’:a’V””
statutory of period of 12 yearspiadérersély
the interest of the true owr1c_r1’a_r1ci thereby ‘~ it it
perfected his title of V _atlV_ei’ise’*VV
possession’? . _ , ,’ ‘
2. Whether the plaintiff/appe1lsilt;’:ihas proved
that irifpossession of the suit
‘schedule. prc})e1=t§ the date of the suit?
3. __Whether the plaintiff/appellant has proved
defefrtlantsp. tried to interfere with the
_ possession of the item No.2 of the suit
= ;s”c.hevdi1l.e”_:property?
\fJhether the plaintiff/ appellant has proved
” that he has issued notice to defendants 33
if I and 14 and complied Section 80 of CPC?
‘Wt
11. The Judgment and Decree of the First Qkppellate Court is
challenged by defendant Nos.3, 5 and 8 to 10 in this appeal.
Regarding other defendants, since they did not challengefithe
Judgment and Decree, they are made as formal
aPDea1 as re5P0ndent Nos.8 to10. At the time of after,
hearing the learned counsel for appellants on
Judgment and Decree of both the Courts this i
the following substantial question of _
,
1. Whether the Firzst, i?\…p;§ei_latef Court was
justified in grantinhgt decree “of V “permanent
injunetionaiti the light of point for
:._eonsid’eratjon.V 1egar_ding– adverse possession
being held plaintiff’?
:l?hereaft.er_ this court” secured the records of both the court below
p;ror.:eedVed_ tohhear the arguments of both the plaintiffs and
defendai1t.s,VV'”veh»9_ respectively respondent, Nos.1 to 7 and
appellants beforefl this Court and this Court proceeded to answer
‘thee,sa_rne in the affirrnative, for the following:
REASONS
who are contesting the suit by denying all the plaint averments.
The defendant No.12, the Taiisilriar has also joi.ned4.the:rri.__in
denying all the plaint averments. It is rather ir1terestin;«§”to–«’s’ee _
defendant No.12 in his anxiety to deny the titie a.nd..possessiori o1″–« ..
suit schedule item Nos.l and 2, has gone
revenue document which originated’ from the Fievenpue A§)epart:m’e11t.”» ~’
of State Government from 1930 till dateV’hacce;)tifig’&ti1at the plaintiff
has been in possession of:so.me_’Ahportio.n,fllo~f. the situated
adjacent to his property on the
14. Though in it is Seen that
the extent of by him varied from
1933, i939:’:and of filing of the suit from 1 acre 1
gunta, the and his ancestors were in
possession ofthe su~it__sched’ule property, as could be seen from the
“revenue xrecor:ds_’pr_oduced by them and ofcourse as stated earlier,
evici;io11.l’_notiee’–« by defendant No.12 also presupposes that
xwvlthere is”‘s0m__e’ in the contention of the plaintiff that he has
in possession of certain extent of land, situated adjacent to
his«’pArope:rty, on the banks of river cauvery. It is not in dispute by
the parties that suit schedule item No.2 is Government
W
E5
Karab and the land is situated on the bank of river cauvery.
the land, which is feeder} by alluvial soil, the most fertile soil
brought. by river in its eourse of movement and the said’ land_ is
ideally suited for cultivation. For the purpose of _
f ‘4 ,
ground in the village could be utilized. A valuabl~e.–Alar;1d*«..
could not be wasted for the purpose buréiaj.
would be ideally utilised for the purpose;lagricigltvare:’activity. l
15. Infact, Section 92 of the liict clearly
states that such kind of *–be.”allowedAAto go waste.
The authority could put by offering It to
the neighbouringglande-zvner:’–at5 all to be fixed. If it is
I
not agreeable to hint”‘t1ien’ton’dispose of the same in a manner
prescribed under Revenue Act, for such price
as the authtirities “de_erns fit. in any event. Section 92 does not
pervn1i’t.ethe to be utilized like any other land available
either or 91 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
dFu1*tl1er;'<«.il; is"seen that the internal rivalry between the members of
i¢"tthe'village.appears to be the reason for denying the possession,
cult;vation and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule item
As could be seen, nearly 22 witnesses have given evidence
WW
16
against the plaintiff. Infact, most of them are younger in age, than
the period in respect of which they say regarding the usage
land as burial ground by the villagers. There app_e§ai*s _
concerted effort by major section of the villagers in Vtoidepiiye –« ..
and deny the use and enjoyment of the suit
the plaintiff.
16. The plaintiff in supporyttof has he has
been in possession of the as such his
possession should notlbe distufbed of law, as
laid down. by the 5:.r:_::o;:_n~l flossme Gowda (D) by
Lrs. Vs. and another 111.12 2006
at -‘ paragraph 11, the settled
I
possession is ciearl*ly defined… ‘
vV1”’?..y_ En_faiet,v_tl1e rati”o”enun;eiated in the above decision squarely
a’p.plies’toVtl2e ‘facts”‘-and circumstances of the case in hand. in any
vevent;’if1j..t5heseVifilvIhe}:’e every piece of land is required to be put
to’ bettei: use for increasing the agricultural productivity, an
atteniptfby asection of village and also the revenue officials being
guided by such anti development elements, should be
I
W
I
deprived. in any event, this observation does not mean that
defendant Nos.13 and 14 in the Trial Court, who are respondent
Nos..1l and 12 before this Court are to be guided _
occupancy rights of this land to the plaintiff (since by –« ..
‘L.Rs.l. However. it will suffice to say that the fi»1~’i”a–ssappellate-..sCoi§rt
after going tl:u’ough the entire records and_vevidenr:e’iA avajlahjlell
record, has rightly come to the coriciusion that-.t_hef’:plaintiff is in
possession and enjoyment the s.uit:_sc’iiedule.£tem property
and as such he shall be perrnitted possession and
cultivation till he is “dispossessecl due” process of law.
18. There is..neither’ in the finding given
by the FirstfzfiippellateiCourt’inflreversing the Judgment of the Trial
Court and granting pe:maim{1t—- injunction in favour of the plaintiff
so far asggjitem No.*2.._ofVthe’ suit schedule property is concerned,
_defen.dant«Nos.1 to 10 only. It is also necessary to add that
of the plaintiff on his application for grant
suit se.heduleite1n No.2 in his favour, defendant Nos.13 and 14
if ” ‘:”iierebyzd,i-rected to be guided by the provisions of Section 92 of
the Land Revenue Act. which deals with disposal of
Suit schedule item No.2 is the land which is the recipient of
“Wt
alluvial soil by flow of cauvery river water on its eastern side is
ideally situatecl to be utilized for agricultural purpose, than it
as burial ground. Nodoubt. a space for burial ‘of the__jdeael’_’i~s:
essential for the village. Defendant Nos.18 and».
such other suitable land for the said suit.
schedule Item No.2 land fol1owingV.th<e provisions oVf"'{'5ec:t.ion ':é3f2'fof
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, keepirzg the"1é=1gi*1tV':of':1§laintiff to
get it reguiarised in his in favour his LR's) 4
Accordingly this appeal' is {m'tl1_out. a.n§:*"order as to costs.
.ll xj c Judge AGV.