IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BAN{BALOF_{_E
mares 'rs-us THE 14"' DAY or mncu 20433;
BEFORE
me HOBi'B%.£ MRJUSTICE A
'__ 1.' .. [ ... .;'3¢ ".3 .
asaumn msr AP9EALFjkg~;.773n-% T
Rssugg nag: gggg uQ .:*.'zg;1g% §
sm 3. NARAYANASWAMY L ' k
SIG LATE BHIMANNA L %
AGEDMAJOR :
R/OMALURPOST k _ F %
SIDLAGHATTA TAL;Ui{"
KOLAR. q '
-'o
sm. GOViNDAMMA~ V
WiQ.D.GOV¥_NDARAJ " ~ V
''''
OCC:HfiWOR§{. _
RIO MALuR~P0sT,%
SIDLACBHATTA "~E'ALU2!S"E'R!CT.' 1:
Rssvaesstxsratamf HER P.A. HOLDER.
% *5 NARAYANASWAMY SIG BHIMANNA
M "'R!A.JOR,.ARl0 MALUR POST,
1 _ c 3:oLAGHA'rIA TALUK
.. APPELLANT
% tsvémari ANUPAMA HEGDE ma APPELLANTS).
¢1/ .
'*4. VR.!:£JANNA..
AND
1. saw suamwmva
szo THIMMAIAH % A
132. NEW THIPPASANDRA
JEEVANBHIMANAGAR
BANGALORE-75.
2. MARAMMA TEMPLE
our) THIPPASANDRA, X
BANGALORE. % A %
REPRESENTEDBYSRL
RAJANNA.SlOPATEL PRLLRPPA7' :
SKSNED AS secF:5TARv-GFIHE % t
comwmee 1.4'-{E MA_NA__GE'MENTg_''- '. _
NO.120,
JeEvAN3HsM;w.AGA:=i J 1
BANGALOREJS:
3. KR:sHNAPi>AA%v%k% 'A
S10 ABB_A!APF'A_ A L
N0.1-48. irnrppnsnu _ % % VILLAGE
JEEVANBHiM_ANAGAR;_ J
sANr:ALoRE+::5. %
»Si0_PATEL PILLAPPA
' -_A<.'§E[}=45}.'r'RS
N0.--120. cm WPPASANDRA VILLAGE.
JEEVANBHIMANAGAR
BAN~1'.'-3At-.ORfi-?5. .. RESPONUENTS
~ :. COMMON IN BOTH
THE APPEALS.
A % 533' aim T , sa. couusea. FOR
% sac osaavaam yon cm).
THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS ARE FILED UIS. 96
OF CFC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DT. 31.8.99
PASSED IN O.S.NO.10181/1990 AND 1018211990 BY THE XXVIII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
((1/..
tempie premises which bears I-LA. Sanitary Board Kafl1a[':No.1f1
includes Kaiyani. The defendant Nc.4 is the 'cf
Maramma Temple Committee. The third and the _ H V'
were Secretary and President ti}!
obtained the buifding permission by ooyarooaoo;
know about that, the closer offioerdd 5: mo"
licence. The plainfifis cha;!Ie%;1$*:d:sfaid"0gder. o'o*fom at-its Court in
the writ proceedings. and
145611985 for iogoooaon. snjunoooo
came to be prefierred MFAs in
M.F.A.N9.;3;35{i:§?.§'v_ which uitimately
came oo of the plaintiffs are barred by
resjudicdta.Va¥s in mo ooooooooo. moo by the plasma. it has been
held oogoo in possession of the suit schedule
lt"iséAaiso 'tontenfl %%%%% ooo. the court fee paid is not sufficient
properly valued. It Is also ccantended. flue
s1:::o do:o by limitation. The fitie of the plaintiffs in Impwt of
suii promrty has been disputed in the year 1982 itseif.
% "?f1:_1efandants had ohanongod the fitie of the plaintiffs in the
oojoouoos mod before the HA. Sanitary Board. The plaintiffs am
% ddasoo suits in o.s.No.1455n9as and 145611985 for injunction and in
V
to"a1;=.¢t} 'ififéma number was 49. The entire viuage
suit scheduie property and the defendants
' V 2.'j1;§$f€..:}:pé;§eL1edVV"fi1eir title by adverse possmion. it is also
the suits brought in the present form are not
%kmaiz§iaénab:e. it is thetefote they have prayed for dismissal of the
the said suits me tifle was denied. The plaintiffs oughfib _
Ehe suit for mlaration within flwree years from --« .
theit titie. The present suits flied
¥earsarebarret3bVIimitation_ ' '-- ~. .
In flue year 1927. the was
fenced and renovated by erected a
Shila Shasana in renovated the
Kalvani. at his in the year
1963 The defendants conduct
annual Thapp<:»:§a§a ifaivéasures no ft x 115 n.
Maramma and it comprises of
built area of 42 ft mhrl fine temple atea measurm
25'?! :«:..29}°ar2a:;9-f.:tlIae xro'-.~I1'n;iV:1ir:';}":3rea is a lung space. Formerly
." Prior to that. the Katha number was 18.
h/%%
6. The trial court has framed the ~ .'
ISSUES FRAMED IN 0.§_J.j"O§81lt§{~)... ; [3 % ~ A
1) whether the plaintiff proves thathe the"mt}nt-if er' %
schedule property by virtue at the seteteatee3+§-1969? % A
2) Whether the plaintiff tunheejetevee 'that"t!te sh tewrut
possession of the suitzscheduieh 2 _
3) Whether the plaintifi ifflurthafr x'!t.r'at the defendants
interfered un[awfui!yAA.En,:'?i§S ehd enjoyment of
the suit schédtfle prépemf? 2
4) is the siuii""t:oi'--rrtaihtajnéialg"without seeking the relief for
5) is j of injunction barred by the
ptihetptee ht
6) is the xvesuatsehtmedettend the court tee paid thereon not
% h % 7)' 2"" defendant ptovee that it is the owner of the
::$ahet3§:f,ei_ipropefty of th the ettemattve whether the 2""
'T giroves that it has perfected its titte over the suit
écheduié fipmperty by adverse possession?
% any , the defendants prove that there is a nomjoindef of
A = parties as cantended in para 24 of their written
statement, if so, what is its effect?
T t he) whether the defendants prove that the suit is name to be
dismissed for not impleading the member of the village
V
T' Vvhether the is properly valued and court fee paid
-- 3. «.t_l_1ereon is"si,r!T:oient?
.V f suit in the present form is not maintainable?
piaintiw is entitled for declaration and injunction as
l elli9; .lT§'o what decree or order?
Note: issue No.6 to be heard as preliminary issue.
community of old and new Thippasandra
10) Vlihether the defendants provg;-,ihai suii is
public policy and law for the
theirwrittenstatement'? V . ~. "
11) To what relieforreliefsfienythe'p!eiiriiffi:sér§tiiieci"for? A i
12) Whatdecree ororder'?
lsgggs Egmieg Q
1) Does plaintiff proiée tiégasrlsuii no feet x
ssmeet and rtbueagl-sieo&iri1la'ihalfi~i¢:».r5o?
2) Dow he [prover owner of the suit
property urzdef
3) is he in of
4) oo deremams u:"5i':ovr"li11at.'V'rsui't property is part of lchatha
msio,1/1o-'iéiiid:._it: is~lovvneii'by'defendant No.2 temple?
5) tlieyfuriheif that suit property as part of katha
~o.e=;1irs.anpese;sen of defendant No.2?
" fprayed?
L4/.\
evidence. He also submitted that the survey proceedinge
pending when die matter was decided and M '
come out and the documents now sought-to be the 'V
appellants have direct bearing on iVnvol'w§§..i';:
and therefore fire appellana the'
additiona! evidence. llaatt"-rso~:rEae of the
documents were not in have come into
existence were not
traceable and earlier and
therefore the to produce the additional
evidence. Hedge: the findings recorded by the trial
court cannothe su$te2he¢ii:in iV'le§§. Further, he. submided that the
trial court_hae.Vfai.!ed'to aopreciate the evidence on record in proper
_ - therefore, die impugned Judgment and decree
in law. He also submitted that the appellants
arellre of the suit schedule property having purchased it
"'-e.fi1rough._registered sale deeds dated 8-8-1969 and dwey are in
"ii and enjoyment of the suit schwuie property and the
i' trial court without considering die evidence on record in proper
i eerspeciive has dismissed the suits of the plaintiffs and therefore
the impugned Judgment and decree cannot be suetained in law.
V
_ ' shows" me! the suit schedule progeny has been used as
§;e,,:§or the purpose of Theppetfmva and also Ganapethi
.
the suits are badly barred by iimitation. In _
submission he placed reliance on the foilowing V’ ‘% 3 1 V’
1. A.I.R.1960 s.c.335.
2. A.I.R.2007 s.c.s41. %
3. 1989(1) K.L.J. 377. V _ _
12. The seames_counse& next
contended that it is clear that the suit
scheduie property M$’b:vi§”*s submitted
that the suits are submitted mat
the plaintiffs h:;i\}e’Vfeiie.%§Vtogéievesftejfl1e§ue}e’vin lawful possession’:
of the suit sabrnithw that the source of
tifle of the plVa_i_nfifis hes”netV ‘elgesnpéoved. He therefore submitted
sense hes rifihtiyéaetd that the plaintiffs have faiied to
13A. Ft;a*E*.:e3r1’~”lse submitted that the evidence of D.W.’i
Lt/s
:1 “«-Vvihe feareexicoensei the partim.
V A ‘ ‘i8e..__T!ié.points mat arise formycensideretien are:-
attention he the findings rwerded an LA. in5 ?§§s%j’» %
proceedings and submitted that fl1e>AA»in_;’_unct£e:1″ ‘V
granted and the plaintiffs are not in 6’:
property and therefore the suit.fer..__¢.;lecféa ra_tji’i>:! ;
relief of possession is not maintaineble K is ems
submission he placed reliance esgtae A ”
(1) MR. 1993 s.«c:.957.s'e' I; (2) !.L.R. A 1 'I6. cannot depend upon the case. In support of his submission he following decisiom . u.'71e.- sssss 14 s
1’22. – :_hes{e4ve;s;e]3&:lly considered the submissions made by
for inteafereme?
(ii) Whether the eppellenm can be permitted to produce
the addifional evidence?
‘«./
19. Point No.1:- The case of ihe plaintflfs
the owners of the suit schedule property; K V’
have purchased ihs suit schedule
deeds dated 3.3.1969. They’iV_hav_e P4%4.»Vis
Exs.P41 and P42 are the sale oi’ the
piaintiffs. In me said Katha number.
site number or mentioned. The
source of ‘has? not been mentioned.
Ali that is sshéor of the plaintiffs, is a
possession of ytamatana
propertgvv/”.’« Vifixcépt is mentioned regarding the source
of tifle of Exs.P1 to P8 are the encumbrance
‘ . fsgAfi1ex’y’e”a’rs’V1968 to 1995 but. may cannot prove the
‘G! or their vendor. Ex.P9 is the tax paid receipt and
Ers.’i-“A10 are the assessment extracts in respect of the
progiemi many No.93l122 and 150. In Ex.P10, it is mentioned
‘ * fiunsiaiah owned ptoperty measuring 39 ft x 28 ft. and it was a
%%’a§haf.e.: buiiding. Thereafter, the maasumn-sens have been aimed
110fix52 mt. Thereisno basisforihis. ssmuany, state is no
basis for the rmasuremenis shown in Ex.P11. it is clear from
L/s
No.132 is e public property and it ie shown as Kur}te;** es _
this. in my considered view, there is no 6i§.,:
record to show that Kalyani i.e., the
to Maramma tempie. But mere ‘is
show that the suit scheduie has lt
is in the evidence of n.w.–1 me%seét has been
used as Kalyani since eme and other
religious purpose}-e.’ No.1 remains
unchatlenoeg. show that there
is no Kenyanieege e? and 33.013 to ms and
D19 suit scheduie property has been
used asAKa-Jfiani. considered view though there is
no pijttchigwa regard to show that Kalyani i.e., the suit
.’ V. ‘A “”” ‘ to Maramma tempie but tm fact remains
e ‘i’t”i’.-5 as Kalyani since long time.
” next question is whether the suit is barred by
23. The IearnedcoI.:nsalfoM:heappdiantsconte:1dedt!1at
% suit is not bened by iimitation. But. the teamed counsel for the
respondents contended that the suit is badly barred by iimitation.
V
: ‘Eialkaran”sjihghv-rflpgtrttfid in Am 2007 s.c. 641. the Home
– Couimfias held. time starts to run when the right to sue
‘-W aa’%¢w9*%.~
If Ganapw Benanki. reparted in 19% (1) KLJ 377.
He also invited my amnfion to the various proceedings that have
taken place earlier and also no para–2T of the plain: and
mat the suit is badiy barred by Iimitafion. In _
submission he paced reliance on the foiiowing 31;: % TJ .
(1) A.l.R.1960S.C.335- * v4
(2) AJR. 2907 s.c. 641 . % %
(3) K.L.J. 1989(1), 377.
24. The case of Rukhmabai ~v~ in AIR 1960 S.C. 335 has invasions or denials of a tight. h 120 accmes when the
defendant has cIa£.r:g anz§ uzraaeenad to infringe the
right ihe suit.
k A a;m–::a::y;’%snam cm of State of Punjab And Am. —–vs»-
Similarly in the case of Dada Jirmappa Khot «—vs-
01/
ipgrmimd in the addifionai evidance?
_ h and some of me them have came into existence
a ‘V Lvijfsubfiiééxquent to the decree and therefore, they may be permitted to
ptbduce the additional evidence. As rightly submitted by the
cansidered view, the trial court has rightiy held that the suits are
barred by limitation under articie 58 of the Limitation Act.
27. one more aspect that needs to be _
whether the piainhffs’ can maintain the suit for
saeking the reiiefofpossession?. i V
23. in the previous pi§cxgedi:ig$ in O’.$’.i§i§;«1–4n553
1456f1985 a clear finding has ti-sat. are
not in possession agmi’ §;eir’i;i§:g§m rejected.
P.W.1 in his wanna.
There is amplé’1gAavi<:ieni.:V§"'£:v:'i:- that the suit schedule
has been used my considered view, me
suit_ for relief of possmion cannot
….. ..
29; gum.» is whether the appellants can be
i is stated by the appellants am these documents
V
by limim5on and the documents are not required
case. Therefore. in my considered waw. the
permitted to produce the additiona! fiaifgd irks L
rejected. There is no merit In these
itabieto badlsmissed. jj % ” ‘ % %
33. Accoruing¢hy;. my v in the
circumstances of .,