I T "(By Sri : S P KULKARNI, ADV)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE V'
BEFORE; A V'
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSft§'c.E SN'.
RSA.NQ,.1-Eff'?!/f2--0A§)6 .' "
BETWEEN:
1. SR1 GOPAL_
S/o LAfl'E3MARIGOWDA"= X S R.
AGED. A;t3C1j§Ji{' 38_'Y_RS_
2. M
5/0 Lani, MAR1C}OWDA_'
AGED Asomj YRS
3. K M cHENNAK9;Sz.-{AVA
,-- S/o LATEMARIGOWDA
~ AGED A.I30LJfr__3.:a YRS
R"/o"KoDIKoPPALU VILLAGE
* 1. I3ASA1f2AJ_,_ HOBLI, MANDYA
W./.O"LATE MARIGOWDA
" AGED ABOUT 55 YRS
A I 4_ ARE R/O KODIKOPPALU VILLAGE
BASARAL HOBLI, MANDYA
APPELLANTS
fw-t
SMT LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YRS,
KODIKOPPALU VILLAGE,
BASARAL HOBLI
MANDYA
[By M/S P NATARAJU A/S, _ADv"s_)l
THIS RSA IS E11,ED-_U/.5 .tp10'b~v,OE--':,ePc AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENfr--IAND :DEci§EE4V"'D%:.,31.cr3'.2006 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.21{1j(20§34_. ON l+"--lL'EV"O'F THE PRESIDING
OFFICER; O 'TRACK ,(:'OIjRT»_11:.,-- MANDYA, DISIVIISSING
THE APPEAL AND C'ONFif.'.MING THE JUDGEMENT AND
DEGREE "DT.27.Cf7;1998' ON THE FILE OF THE PRLCIVIL
JUDGE
1' THIS APEEA:,..cOM1NG ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
V' --. DAY, Ti-IEA' COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
defendants’ Second appeal challenging
concisiffent findings of both the Courts below.
2. Facts leading to this appeal are that, respondent
V uuherein is plaintiff and appellant is defendant in the trial
Court. The plaintiff filed Suit for declaration and permanent
E
“*2
injunction against defendant in respect of _,.:of,2
acres of dry land situated in
village, Basaral Hobli, Mandya wh’ich’Awas*grantedto T.
her by Tahsildar, Mandya Talluk. –grantcertific’ate*.
in favour of plaintiff is at””e«I?;§ii..P1 beforeralghellllvtrlial Court,
wherein the property” plaintifffis i’dentified°by extent and
boundary correspondingto within which it is
situated. Based’:-on. related documents ie.,
= extract and other revenue
records,” the ” proceeded to frame appropriate
issues aridlllield sarrie in favour of plaintiff and decreed
svuxity which’ wasilchallenged by defendant in first appeal
V R.A;No«..@2″i4_/2004 on the file of Fast Track Court–IH,
if = the judgment and decree passed by trial
‘OfS.No.99/ 1996 was confirmed. The present appeal
” is. directed against the aforesaid concurrent findings.
3. The ground on which the present appeal is filed by
defendant/appellant is that, earlier he had filed a suit in
OS.No.874/1993 for the relief of permanent injunction
Lew}
.4.
/
against plaintiff/respondent, based on the saguvali the
said suit was decreed. The case of defendantflis ‘tiia:’t,.:’when
once the issue regarding possession was”‘adju’_dic’ate’dy upolnp
and decided by the same Court;»A,thc;”‘saidf’Court slioiipldiignot .
have taken-up the matter pei=taining._to injur:1ction_Hin ..respect*
of the suit schedule property. .
4. On going through decree of trial
Court and firstappellateiserioticed that saguvali
chitissued vi’n7faVo*ur’of plaintiff in the present suit is earlier
one in the order of tiinef wherein an extent of 2 acres granted
inpgfai/our of plaintiff and the same is identified with reference
A «to surve_y_rii.1mber as well as boundary bordering on all four
_ property. Based on that, title as well as
p”0.sse.ssion° of plaintiff over the suit schedule property is
.c confirrned in the present suit, which is confirmed by first
if ‘A._V’a-ppellate Court. In the said suit, the trial Court and first
appellate Court while assessing facts and documents
available on record have come to the conclusion that
saguvali chit/ grant certificate issued by Tahsidlar, Mandya
i,/ifizgi
district in favour of defendant is to an extentiof
guntas and does not contain boundary
which is said to be situated within of ”ileggad’thalli ‘
village. It is further noticed-by bath the C.ourts_belc;wlti1ati»
there is nothing on record that tfboundfaiy of land
granted in favour of of land granted
in favour of plaintiff is ‘in the absence of
any bouri’dafg,r.i-‘ beinig ‘” mentioned in the grant
certificate.[saguvali« chit”issu,e(l’vtolthe land granted in favour
of defen’da11t.: “liJ.ndeVr°’t.he.__lcircumstance, both the Courts
below vvlerel unab_1efr.to=come to a conclusion that the land
granted in favourof plaintiff and defendant are one and the
» lsarne.vor.yt’he”adjacent properties. There is also no basis as to
H llthe.”p:.de:fendant would identify his property without
referencehlto any of the documents. In the light of these
“tit1i.ngs,l both the Courts below have rightly come to the
lavconfclusion that plaintiff has made out a case not only to
“prove her title based on documents but also her possession
in respect of the suit schedule property. Whereas, defendant
who is appellant herein has miserably failed to substantiate
W
his claim with supporting documents tha_tlth.e’ of
plaintiff and that of defendant and_the-lsamxevvpianpd the if.
exparte judgment and decree obtainedby
in 0.3.847/93 would act
hand. Even assumin’g~..f0r said principle
would apply, it matters are for
permanentiinjurietionnlonlyi case, the case of
plaintiff is” not tfoijj-:.p:iértnla:nentip.injunction, it is both for
decla1’ation”jof h’e;r.ti”t1e”–as Wellas permanent injunction to
protect “her icifer the suit schedule property,’
which sll”ie_pllhaslp._roVediin support of documents produced in
suit. V Whe’rea__s_,__ihe earlier suit filed by defendant is only
‘ ufor inju.ne.tion_, that too, on the basis of a document, which
if ‘- :do.esl’lno”t~..contain any boundary to the extent mentioned
therein’ and it is also in respect of an extent of 3 acres 20
l guntas of land as against the suit schedule property which is
extent of 2 acres. Under the circumstance, the
contention of appellant that principles of res-judicata applies
to the matter on hand and both the Courts below have failed
to notice the same and have given a wrong finding holding
that the present suit is not barred by fres-
judicata is without basis and the same_.is.’:”1e_jeeted: iblteisb
further seen that there is no or the id.
judgment and decree of botlfx the7sC:o–urts are
well reasoned and based on””efaets and’ d_oeu”:nentsVVavailab1e
on record. In the lightof thistwnoiisubstantialvquestion of law
arises for consideration tlivisVia}_3pe.a1.AA_’.’V .Si1j.ce no substantial
question of _1aw_a-riseflforf e_onsidera~tio”n;j’there is no scope for
admitting” “*–.VHenee;””‘the appeal is dismissed
without ax_1y”order_ asfto costs; __
Sd/:1
Ifiag-“5