IN THE HIGH comm’ or KARNATAKA AT ”
DATED THIS THE 20th DA'{i{)F-{JUNE V
BEFORE % %_
THE HC)N’BLE MR. Jugricn
REGULAR SECQND
BETWEEN: V « V
1 NAYAGAM .
SINCE 1::Is:<;=:;» av HIS LR}
1(a) ANTHONIAMMA'WiD? AMRiJ.’FEi_TALKIES
SANEUR IN BELEARY £215″? ‘
1(1)} A M N XAVI.ER.S]0
MAJ OR, R] KJANATHA ‘
OPP AMRUTHLTALKIES ‘ V
SANDURVIN BELLARY DIS?
lie) AMN momaswaml S/0 NAYAGAM
MAJOR, es: fa .:AN.A’I*HA comm?
‘*1’I_>P§”‘ ARERUTH-T’AjLKJES
s;xNDuR”IN’i3EL1,jaRY DIST
‘ V1V(d}_ AMN”‘MAF2’i’ ‘I>)47z)A»sAYAc;A1~4
. MAJOR,’ R”/A JANATHA COLONY
~ 1 ‘ ” — .. 6?? AMRL3’i’H TALK] ES
‘ SAi’~¥DL}R IN BELLARY mm’
my STEVENSON s/0 NAYAGAM
MAJOR, R/A JANATHA comm
_ ~ 0?? AMRUTH TALKIES
SANDUR IN BELLARY DIST
J2.
16} AMN ANTHINI KENNEDY S/0 NAYAGAM
MAJOR, R/A JANATI-IA COLONY
OPP AMRUTH TALKIES
SANDUR IN BELLARY DIST
HQ AMN JAMES WILSON S/O NAYAGAM
MAJOR, R/A JANATHA COLONY
OPP AMRUTH TALKIES I ‘
SANDUR IN BELLARY DIST ;.”.
(By Sri: S V TIL-GUL, AADVJ
AND: a « _
1 K PRAKASH 3212:1313? Si:+icB:’I)§;i;::J _
ital sHYAMAI.fi?.R??DDv’ .. ” ‘
3/«:1 PRAKA.SH”i2_.EDD§’,’~.. ‘
MAJOR, Rm NEAR AN'{.’_BONY MARRAIGE HALL
OF? OLD COWL—BAZAAR
BELLARY – ”
1(3)] BAIARNJ. S/0 PRAECASH REDDY.
MMQR, Rf-A NEAR imaom MARRAIGE HALL
OLD MARKET.C’-OVVL BAZAAR
._ * ..r«1AJ<3R.,.§A$sT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
A KEB, sgmanaxag ROAD, BELLARY
', 3 &;Aié';'HAMMA w/0 SHANPHAPPA
'A T MAJOR, R/A 22m) WARD om MARKET
' 1- .<:;ow1, BAZAAR, BELLARY
.' 4':-V 1;}: 123 JOSEPH
% ELECTRICJAN IN N M D c
sanma RESPQNDENTS
" A' V (By Sri: '1' N RAGHUPATHI, ADV.)
L
a
no
RSA FILED U/8.100 cm AGAINST THE JU.:1Ae.N0.9/
FILE OF THE ADDL. crvn. JUDGE (SR”.«.DN_.),’V –B_ELmu.RY,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIVRMINGA.’I’HE._J’UDGM.ENI’1T_:
AND DEGREE DATED 14.2.1990 PASSED Iii O.S.N{£F.f1′?1;f 15385.
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. MUNS!F’P,__.BELlg\_RY. V
This Appeal coming; :13 fmf Court
delivered the following: V __ _
A %
The the defendant in
(}.S.No.¢IV+T1]’1–E:V3:.fA3f52′..’ in favour of the
p}aintifi’ by dated 14.2.2990. The
dcfcndant by the said judgment and
Vv First Appellate Court in RA
__FiI’st Appellate Court has dismisaeti the
dated 209* March 2002. The defendant
V -vthexeifinf: to be aggrieved by the mmunent
passed by the {hurts below is before this Court in
‘n
2. The panics are referred in in the M
assign’ ed to them befole the trial C_ou;.rt__fo::’ “”‘-uc4_”:Vgf”.,. ‘
convenience and charity.
3. The pzaintitif was beii31e zfi1e: for
judwtent and decree and for the
consequential relief of of the
suit schedule was that he is
the absolute property bearm’ g
‘I’.S.No.3i%: measuring 7357 sq.fi:
situate a£”Q1de%Marke%iA’eRaa{j;’ 1 Bazaar, Bellary. The
‘teat .f}1evst1it schedule property oztifially
3.3;; one Sm’t;§{.’Sund1an1ma the junior aunt of the
Slmdramma got the property throng}:
the of Madras on 13.2.1933. She is said to
, Imve been poasession and enjoyment of the 3uit_ mhetiule
since 13.22.1933 and on 13.11.1967’, she executed a
settiement deed in finvour of the plaizntiff. The
tlzexefoxe, claiming to have acquired title to the
L
‘in:
property under the sa1d’ settlement deed dated H
claims to be in possession of the ‘the
municipal taxes in respect of the c1T[1»i1£AiAé:’~f(J-1:?
the suit by the plaintifif is 4136 §iVta;f¢n€$..g;V:;:-$7
working in the I-“choc d¢f;)a1’tmon1.;:§§s 8.. ‘ca-nsténble in
Sandur Police Station _right title or
interest in the said the
pla1’11t:ifi’ and to file the
suit. }. J V
4. ($n.f_l§ofing’ summons, the dcfcmiant
appealtxi gnd oa i;’.et.oiled written statement. The
«i”ofc3i(i:i:i1ti–.”od.ci:soi§.d «the plaintiff is the owner of the
on the other hand set up title to the
— that the property in question had been
Eyihe Mummpa’ ‘ lcolmcil, Bcllaxy on 29.11.1932 in
o¢fRcven3d J. Pinto. The sand’ Resrcmd -J. Pinto ‘m said’
have executed a sale deed in flavour of the defendant on
°.3l.8.I96l. The defcndatat contends that prior to the
J,
o
N
execution of the sale deed, the vendor wasin V” V’
themafier the defendant has been, V
property and the municipal
defiendant thcrefare not oniy diifiifltes igifle * }’
but sets up title in himself andi_1 §s 1sm;gh£’£c»:~_ of
the suit. A ‘V
5. The contentions put
forth by “rV:’1aéyV aa 10 issues for its
:3 pmvves his vafid title to the
— , ?
\§I1&1cthex;Hj5lmn”«v’ tiff proves that he is in lawful
of the suit pmpexty ‘P
v_ plaJ’nt1’fi’ proves that the defendant is
” V iilegally interfiering in his possession ‘1’
” ix!) Whether defendant proves that he is the owner
in possession of suit property by virtue of
32
rcfistcmd sale deed dated 31;i?§;1Qf?31: “‘ ‘ k
contended in para 8 of st£i’1;c::1_;e.i1 t
V) Whether defendant has ”
he has perfected sjby
advmsc possgsjon . -. ,. 1
vi} Whether mg the suit of
the
vb? ;::§§§;5’%£hat the valuation
“”” is impmpcr ?
proves that this Court
to try the suit ?
1}} = is cntiticd to the reliefs prayed ~ ..... ' or decree 7-'
6″. order to discharge the burden cast on the
the issucs framed by the tnal’ Court the plainfifi
V. himself as P’W.1 md examined two witnesses as
‘ ;PWs.2 and 3 and also marked documents at E:-:h.P1 to P11.
is
The defendant examined 113133’ sex; as Dw.z m1f§«l:_f ‘ – 7 H
witnesses at £)ws.2 to 4 and marked:-décumcigts
D50.
7. The trial sgridcncc
tendered by the palfiees ? u contentions,
d€C’.!BE=d the suit if; and the
appeal filed 15$ judgment
dated RA” ‘by judgment datnd
is before this Court in
this ‘ ‘ ” hereunder:
.’ V. «V Grgurt admitting the appeal on 19.9.2002
:e;2 ‘n;:(i V’ ‘ _’_g substantial quemtians emf law which read
as he33:un(l¢1″[ AT
i] ” T~W1~;ether the Courts below eeuid have deemed
V ” the plaintiff ‘s suit when eamiuedly the plahatifl”
who has come to the Court seeking declaration
3:.
judgment rendered by the tr1a’ 1 Court would M
tzdal Court has assessed the evidence “available
that context.
12. As noticed above, the registered
settlement deed dated’ :’ to Iaaae been
executed by VA aunt of the
plairjfifi who Vbeizin «enjoyment of the
property deed is marked
as ” 1 right under which
pmperty in favour of the
p1ai11t;iff,_vit isLi$c-1V1 i:e31d:-edAVthe property was granted by the
of Maaia;-you 13.2.1933 vide tara No.49(}8/32.
g;ra:nt order nor any document executed by
the avaiiable at this juncture, the document:
. ‘.911 plainfifi places Ieliazlce is the extract of the
“.Sur§rey Register which is marked as Ex.P2. The other
=«T.’aia(g1a1’1;enI3 at Ex.P3 to P11 are no doubt the zevenue
such as the other extraets and the tax paid’
< A receipts. Against the said case put forth by the plaintifi; the
J:
I3
defendant has contended that the pmpcrty in queetien: M
initially gamed in favour of Revelnd’ ‘J.F’–inIA:o”_<by_:
Municipality on 29.11.1932 and nmgma
has said the pm-petty to the a
deed dated 31.8. 1961 is §S_ EX..].)"1;"-I.fl..€.;Id€}f' to
state that the pmpertyv vendor, the
defendant has en which 'E
at Ex.D4l. the other
eeries are the extract
of the f receipts. The suit of the
plainfifl im.':;:ee%p:eaéui,'-c§gi;sceV"'s§$as instituted on 2.11.1935.
The1*eii:&'e, _the' ti%3ve relifi on by the pLa1'ntifi' as
vi?ell éie-Cttfje &'eienda1v1Him'et Ex.P1 and D1 were nearly two
file dete of institution of the suit and it is
not document had come into existcmre
just the fifing of the suit. in that bacl-rye-uxxd, no
<iLe_t:13_tD4I would state that it is a memo wheleunder the
engineer is rinfcrmed that Revernd J.Pinto has
the amount and the engineer is lequesfed fa
E.
..,4.s
handover the plots. However, there is no other M
indicate that the property has themafteré u
the name of Revezmcl Pinto
memo has been acted upoo. Vot};1eAr”‘:._;re:refiue
documents relied on by the of the
assessment register and “which are fiozm
the year 1971 onwalfle.-“* “Eix.D42 would
i:1d:iate that the year 1971
though the fmhamd in the year
1961. iejeveli though the revenue
doemnelofi had been aesessed in
the name of his purchase, there is: no
V’ to Show to the document at Ex.{)41
2.12.1932, the vendor of the defendant
woe’ possession as indicated therein and the
Vvvéas assessed in his name . If these
are kept in view, the document relied on by the
at Ex.P2 to complement the aettlelnent deed at
“uEx.P1 would assume certain evidenlziary value even though
J3
15
no title deed as such of S:mt.K.Su11da:ramma
This is so because the contention Zctfwflzze. ‘:t}i_tttt’
property was allotted in favour of
be fortzified by the entzy jg
recerds whemin the 73
found in Ex.P’2. Though’ «i3 an extract of
the register “a’:lli;hO1’ity, it is
not a case been obtained
subsequent ‘m favmlr of the
plainfifi around the date of filing of
the suit. wouid indicate that the saw
extraet has ‘isguad’~§fi’~:a;6.1o.1967 which is pliin’ to the
-“fitititc deed which was executed on
flfiteiefore, the said document at Ex.P2 not only
V cstabfl1iahes’tt;§-ittttthenticity but would also itzdicaiie that the
was aequ1red’ by Szztt.K.Sundam1nma as
entaezed in the land survey records. which
‘iindieate that the grant as claimed has been ac-ted
Vt and the settler of the plaintifl’ had acquired title and
is
16
was in posscsslon’ of the pmperty. Though Iemned_ H
counsel for the appellant relied on E;(‘.B-€20, aft
sa1d’ to have been issued by the om
dispute the said document at __”to {he
learned counsel when 1333!?’ Iicf1″:V;’?l$hlV:-T§iv-_$’0″‘»’L,311t. ‘fbI’vvfh¢.3 §cxuact
as at Ex.P2, he was not same. This
contention cannotflgsttqy’ Ex.P2 since
first and famgéwgfl issued by the
ofiice of the states is that it is
not avaiIf;#blc_! aéqifii-..V_§uch endomcment was issued
on 17.4.1 9a9′ :§1;§=;1″‘az:§¢:i§.uent at Ex.P2 as already
139-ficsedj. *a’oxavc 1’a. cgttract which was issued in or
fife; of thc suit but as far back as in the
Va,:§_i.~such the said endorsement cannot take
aevxiy of Ex.P2. These being the relevant
in a case of this nature, it would have to be
.;g;uc:u.aed that the pla’mtifl’ has established a better title
3}} crther documents as ahead}: observed are the
A
7:
exlracts of the tax paid receipts which are .
both in the case ofthc plaintitfmad t}:’;t锑ti¢:f4=:1&1(i’§111t_V;.” A:
13. Apart fmm the
apprcciatring the said .Iii’?l’fI’».!3F'(:.vv£4£t)E3},”}i1}g
in View the facts and also the
assessment of Court both
d0cumcnm|y.a_s§’-;L§fe§iL%a!§ (~;-;f_al__,A:: vvt:1iéVV’posscsaion of the
pm-pelty Vthc judgment would
indicate “1:a.’ss mfitrred to the cvidcuoa
tendered through his witnesses and
dcfendgrfit _ wséitnesscs and insofar as thc
:’thé:~tr1J_ ‘ has come, in a finding of fact.
‘A First Appellate Court thczeaftcr while
~ ‘..__C~&nsiicfi11g3 the oorrcctzzess or othclwise of the finding
by the um’ I Court has mferred to the evidence
by the parties and an re-appmcriatian of the
V jcvidcnoe has dctemlined the be£:tc1’titlc of the plaintifi’i1:t the
L
is
manner stated above and the F113′ t Appcilatc haéfi
afimed the: finding of fact: mndc1;:£i”‘by
Thcrcfom insafar as the eoncurrcnt “c rf
the possession of the
intclfarcnce in 3 second ashfziievquqea:-ifion of
law miscd, as alneaciy a case when:
the plai11tifi' has at all. The discussions relied on by
the pzamciflf 13.11.1957 and in
older the plaiufifi has derived
title unde§4*:1;é the absence of the pawn:
docum§mt\ LA wounds based on its
l1″‘v1″A3._}J6e1«:tvV’cxa1n “”” incsd to omzfinn as to whether the
1.1967 in without basis or net ? While
said exercise, the plaint1’fl’ establishing a
tiflcfiwas enliflxad to the judgment. and dtacrce and as
Courts below have not e<:)mmit:l3cd any crmr in that
1102' is t!:1¢;-we any pclvcrszity in appmciatiug the
V V flcvidenoe tendered before them.
i
'a
I9
15. That being so, the
raised in this appeal are answc1ed’»’:’3g.§_iié%t
Accordingly, the appeal fails and
no smdcr as to coats.