Kempamma W/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN(3!f\E.,»ORE

DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF EEBRUANV2'05i0'°-.
BEFORE   ~  

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI_MA4LI.MA§TH:_
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL. §\_}_O.1fJ79 OF»200l_2g 

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL I1\_|_U~.'114~5_O_F» 2'oag,%Aee.RL

R§A.NQ.1Q72[Q2:

BE'.fwE_E.A:;;T'%'v."VV...,__7.O = 

   
W/0 Iate"~.[)o'd.cfVa'v._Ha--,Dumaiah
Dgeactby her._I__R

  R_,VGO__vEnda"ia~h ---- 
VA u_S/0 "Ia te_ Dodda Hanumaiah
- 'AgLAe'd.»aAb,OuVt' 57 years,
" . "-T'Residi'r:ag_ atjS"reeram Nagar,
V .T'£;ml<.:,.J'r'.~'i__  ' ...APPELLANT

(ByvSti K.G.Raghavan, Senior Counsel for

 A 'AM/s.'v"Lawyers Inc, Advocates)

"'»--.AA}D:

I Sarvodaya Education Society

Gandhinagar, Tumkur,
represented by its Secretary,



SrHr*

This RSA féled under_._se'c,t_io~~n 100 "CPI? set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated A3t9,20.O2 in R.A.No.61/1994
on the filed of the !eartned'--Pr3£:--,.'LjTiviljuydtge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM at
Tumkur, as also the J'fud§m--e.nt-.f;a__n~d Decree dated
23.9.1994

inQ.S.N’o;’35.f3/O’9.fa.on th.e”=fiIe of the iearned
Pr|.C%vii Judg’e«y:.(3-r.D=n.); Tum”»<u'r;-7«___,i

Sarvodaya 'zEdVI.'Icati~i)'n"S'9ociety
G;ando.hinaga.r,V_ Turnkur,

re<prEeyser}ted by Secretary,
Sri K.S.Na.n}'undaiah
' – "S/o''K.'Sh'iyVaramaiah
. "-tl_-Rgeti §é':"Qout'v3"3 years
W R'/at Som_e.s§wara Extension,

T–um..E<'tj r-. ..,APPE LLANT

.. ,(_.By Prof.Ravé Varma Kumar, Senior Counsei)

AND:

Snot. Kempamma
W/o late Dodda Hanumaiah
Dead by her LR

Oéw

…7s_

Eiiegaiiy trespassed into the suit property anc!v’~s:i:’ri_ce_Vvthen

has been in occupation of the same; that{thief”Vd’efeynd’anbt

has no right, titie or interest an.d__insp_-i’te””or:’.’thVé’~ p’_’i.aint_Viff’su

repeated request having fai|ed}”gthe_”pieinitiffwas:’co–m’§§eiied’H

to fiie the suit for decia_ra~tion, A’r’=eco\/er’§,{ of’-vposisessiori’,

mesne profits and costs. _ _ __

7. The defe’ndan_t’ in_h-er wr–i.tten statement states

that her iate husbandDowciciavhanu~rriaiiiar;’.’–purchased 2 acres

37Kguntas’i’i”ci§,it_::’of Spy’;-E\io.–22/2(c) from its originai owner
Hakeiiemyéi AbdulVS.a’in4a’d._nSab by virtue of a registered sale

dee”dr..dated..;t4V§6–:i946 and consequently he was put in

the same. Subsequently, the said Survey

“-i’:u;i’n~,ip*g.;y%vies” renumbered as Sy.i\|o.22/2(C) 2(a) in the

K;—ear._”i94i7. On the death of said Doddadundaiah, his wife,

A. the defendant, continued in possession and enjoyment of

‘”.V'”ti’ie same. It was therefore contended that eversince the

date of the sale nameiy, 14~6-1946 the defendant and

earlier to that her husband have been in continued

i3g\,….»–

-11..

the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records with effect

from 197071 onwards. The defendant without”anyttight,

title or interest interfered with the pos4’s:essi’o’nf'”of.””‘–ithie4_

plaintiff and forcibly took possess.i.on

property in the year 1977. Insplite i

made by the plaintiff, since:;t~h_e defe.nd~ant~.di”d;v”n’o~t ‘ouit the
suit schedule property thepyp-res_Gnt–».suit’hasvbeeh filed. It is
contended that by v~th’e.Vsuit property was
acquired andtne narrie’ the defendant as

welig as_ his7vIendo.r r’aa_rhe_iy, [Hakeem Abdul Samad Sab was
showni.._a’sriow’nei’s”an’d._”persons in occupation of the suit

syciheduieapropertyyi The suit schedule property was

._ip’i”iqi’naily”described as Sy.No.22/2(c) measuring 2 acres 37

Survey Department at the time of sub-

divid.i’n’g~,. ‘divided the said Survey Number into various Sub-

.. Vpivisiroins and 22/2(c) was renumbered as 22/2(c)2(a). The

“”._V”‘i;:~o”undaries shown in the acquisition Notification vide Ex.P–

: 3 and the boundaries as shown in the suit schedule are

one and the same.

Mr

¢r,a;eiM’
n~~é%§’;’~’«”3′

-12..

12. In view of the dispute regarding th;e”ide_I’?tiifric.ation

of the property of the plaintiff and that_.of–»tb:e..

Commissioner was appointed \}yrho:.htas s-ta.’te’d’–in~th-is report”-

that the property under aCqu_isit§«onV_”a’ndV of
defendant are one and ‘Vfh’etefore’:Vhe contends
that the case of’ _ilI–founded. It is
contended that even_.in:.th.ei.”sVaiie deed”:Vve’x’ecuted in favour of

the defend’:a4n§:”s.’_hu:sb&indL the manner in
which property was, and how
it mentioned. Reiiance
was ‘Aa!.s_o placed-i:.’Qn:_4″theclaim for enhancement made by

husbaanvd”‘of ‘the? defendant on acquisition of the

_ vs’che’duie’i.p.roperty’i By piacing reliance on the record of

‘iris-pcontended that eversince the date of the
art-ca-Www*-=icV

___ . ‘5? .~ 195*;

i’31.JfCba’S€«-“‘nam€iY, 1213- the piaintiff has been in

to Vypos.s’e«s”sion and was dispossessed by the defendant in the

éW._V*yeéar 1977. To this effect the records substantiate this

if position.

it is contended that the suit be

V/<"""'""

Therefore,

-14-

Government. Hence, in the absence of compiiante of the

provisions of Section 1?, regarding of

possession, it is to be heid that the posse’ssiovn”rwvvas

ever taken, on acquisition by the’ Gove’rnmre.rjt.«__ The*ref’ore,7_

when the identity of the peropertv,/__
been estabiished and whe’n:t’here.V.is to show
that the possessEon”‘:n.as aficc;Vu’isi’t:ion, the suit
of the plaintiff He therefore

contends that..:Vt§’oth lthe cou:’«ts”‘he.iovv;fcommitted an error in

decreeindff of._t’he__ plaintiff.

“fhepaper–ho_ok~.-fiied in these appeais are incompiete

s.orn,e of tvhev—d–c«cuments are not completely reproduced.

‘ ‘”r’.e_n’ce,* ti1e’origina| records were minutely considered and

$14. Heard the iearned counsels and referred to the

V ” reco rd 5.

15. The triai Court framed 6 Issues for

determination. It came to the conclusion that the suit iand

/,

‘\_/

_15_

was originally numbered as Survey
all measured about 18 acres 12 guntas
names of various persons including
of Hakeem Abdul Samad Thielrsaid
sold the land bearing Sy.No.2§2/:_:(c)eV_»to lthtgdejfenydant to an
extent of 2 acres 37 o–f_’L’$iu’rvey Number 22/2.
Thereafter, theAwholevb.f..the 22/2 was sub
divided intoi: Survey Number
22/2C was Number 22/2(c)2(a) as
statedin_voa’rar_~f3_.__o’f.’tt:e””‘w_rit.ten statement. However, the
same ‘was _ the defendant. Hence a

Con’i;mvisAsion.ei*» abpointed as P,W.4 who submitted his

:”E’:<_:P»19. The Commissioner on conducting a

by referring to the title deeds came to

the-«i._'conC'iu.s'i'on that the land of the plaintiff originally

u"'"'=.:'"beVarin.g=-~"Number 22/2(c) came to be renumbered as

Number 22/2(c)2(a) and further that the land

claimed by the defendant is the very same land with the

Vsame boundaries bearing No.22/2(c)2(a). Hence the

V4"

._16._

commissioner report that the land acquired vi’dlef.l_E’xv.P-3,

the suit schedule land and the land of the ifs—pii%.e

and the same. They are not__differen’t*:’.l;Van’cls’_’_:.Aatr-_ali._

Therefore there is no variation the”pl_ain’£?’5chelduie

property and the propertyV:V”c§airn’e’d tdefelndlant
one and the same. Coymlmivssionerlsl repnortsnaving been
accepted the contelntilon counsel for the
defendant are’ n__ega:ti’v”e’d if

dle_f”e.ln_d–ant contends that on land being

acquired’ by tVhe”‘.Sta”te,yV’ltnere is no material to show that

p-os’sessioVn”fhaVsVtbeen taken. It is therefore contended that

v’Eeév.r_’of_ non–compliance of Section 17, of possession

“-lliavirvig._2_noVt’-“been taken, Ex.P-2 namely, the sale deed

le-xec.ute:lf’in favour of the Company and the consequent

.. ,saie”in favour of the plaintiffs vide Ex.P–1 does not show

Vlpossession has been taken. The trial Court while

i considering the same came to the conclusion that even

though there is no direct evidence to show compliance of

rt’
fir Vggcs

ef’5’JV$9{‘£’3fl/’ “”‘”E€”f
amt “if W

“.17-

the provisions of Section 17 and as to

regard to taking of possessionmby th.e”‘Go:vver’i1rn’eVnt;_ifthen-.AV

recitals in Ex.P–2 would also;ha;ve_3to”ee.be. Vcon”:di’d_ered to”

conclude that possession’ -was witiii
law. Ex.P–3 discloses that under
Section 6 read With:”ST.é’Ct’idV:n “t-h’e.lA’;:5ossession of the lands
were directedto of 15 days from
the date4’Vt3:f’l§.i;~i:’h p:°u.bii::e:e’ti§j.h5L”‘Vrh:”a:erms of Ex.P-2 it has
been of the lands were handed
over 18-1-1949 and by virtue of Ex.P–1
l V ‘ i ‘Q ?i.;is?.:j:’*i,.i¥::”3″*

in favourlioyf Therefore, the

Court. carne.__t’o’1thVe conclusion that the contention with

totaking of possession by the State in pursuance to

V=Jt_he has stood proved by the plaintiff. The

‘I’earn’e’d-counsel appearing for the defendant submits that

.. Vino presumption could be drawn in terms of Section 11-4–E

V”‘o.VAthe Indian Evidence Act. The defendant contends that

the records and documents alone wouid have to be looked

into and in their absence, no presumption could be drawn

G5:/—

in terms of Section 114-5 of the Evidence ..Aetjt4–.th–e’t all

judicial and official acts have been regulariy”

(b) In support of his contention t.he.c_d’:efen_da.nt re:.ies”V.__

on the Judgment in the caselof

vs. KUMTA Co~oPERAT1vi=___. AR:-c’A–NuT
reported in ILR 1992 KARn”Aftg§’KAV t:3:’;;.tipaie-te. In the
said Judgment at pa_r’a.~1Ci_;ii.t:VisVl’:s:tatVed.thatthefpresumption
under Section 114 ii-“t§c_»t’-’twill come to aid if

their partvxplh:;v.eVs«.th’e_faCt that the judicial or official act has
been”iriheffe’c’t~.done:orripelrformed. The performance of an

a;:t’3’udiciat”or’official will have to be proved first and if it is

tr’.e_n the presumption arises that the said act was

‘-“£3elrfo4t’r*n:edn.i’V£nfaccordance with law. Without proving the act

‘h.aving’ -been performed the party cannot ask the Court to

.. Vscraisethat presumption. Section 114–E of the Evidence Act

V”*re’fers to a presumption. A presumption arises on the

V inability to prove that an act has been actually done or

performed. On the inability to establish by material of the

‘icéw

…..]_9_

performance of an act, the provisions of

the Act wiii come into play. However, if”th=e.:sai’dr.,act h_asV~inV’,

effect been done or performed,,_-~th1e:i=_the”‘-same”wouid””

amount to an act having’. been
done, the question of pr_esurnputi_o.jn under Section
114 does not arisect’:’*S_ecti05.7’\ the Evidence Act
arises oriiy been done and
hence a Therefore, the said

judgment no defendant.

Reiwiiaxrice’wLa’s:p}_.aced in the case of UNIVERSITY

or AGRICUtTUi~’}’\L~.~”‘i’ SCIENCE EMPLOYEES HOUSE

,_i§o1i,ii§:2\ic; c’o~~o..9ERAT1vE SOCIETY vs. SPECIAL LAND

‘ .9.”j’AcQi,iI*s,1T::o–rN OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in ILR 1999

4597 to contend that a presumption can be

drawn oniy if there is atieast some mark of evidence on

niirecord to show that the officiai acts have been purported

to be done. However, in the decision reiied upon it is to be

noted that the originai records in the said case were

summoned to ascertain as to whether the public notices

K?/Z\W,

…..20…

were effected or not. In View of the availapijie’i”‘e_c’o:rds___anvd

on facts, the court declined to draw

presumption drawn was basedvion at/ai3lable ‘mate’ri:a.l__. ‘in_nthe'”

instant case, since therea.sed on the other
material on record. t_he..j”u.d’grne>nt does not support

the defendant’s case~»–as._i:n the:i.repoirtec;jcase.

(Ci.’)’H in the case of THE
PRQVINcur§’::oF”‘E5:ENC5Al;—vs.”M’otJLv1 MD. YUSUF reported in
A1R:”‘(_3o_i_ 1’94’3~7Ca%lctittoiiygz. to contend that on acquisition,

the rnateriai Vin, tli.eNotification alone would have to be

.,t_a<E<e_n: into co'nsé—d-ei'ation and not the annexed plan to the

V.-noti"fi.cat:i'orfi:;The annexed plan substantiating the

7 Va'cquis.itid_nn:cannot be considered in the absence of material

in ixlotification itself. By piacing reliance on this

jJ'u_dgment it is contended that the report of the

Commissioner vide Ex.D-14 and other documents material

cannot be looked into, in order to substantiate the

acquisition of the defendant's iand. The Notification per se

l' ' «atlas

..21_.

vide Ex.P–3 would have to be considered by the__Court to
determine as to whether the property is the s.u~i.t:”s.ch.edule

property or that belonging to the defenda_r.’t–..

also placed on the unreported…Judgrnent–:’_ofV”thi_’s.¢ C-ou”rt_

dated 1-4-1999 passed in Writ It

was held therein that neitlhei-..,iV1n the
nor in the final Notification:Vd’eta’i!..sz of.’the,,._’l,an,tl its Survey
Number, area, etc’;’,..V:é’are– Once these
particulars or.t_he acquired are not

me}f1tio_’n.ed’l’l”«i.’tV..i,s:”»dee,rhe.d that such land is not acquired.
i-Ience»._it is ‘c’ohteri.ded,,:”that in the instant case aiso, the

details are “n.,ot’fortl*icoming and hence the acquisition itself

i,,,i”Ex7;’P-3 is the Notification issued under Section (4)

.. or/w”Section 17 and the Notification under 6 of the land

“‘~._VV”acéquisition Act. Not only the schedule lands but various

if other iands were sought to be acquired by the said

Notification. So far as the suit schedule land is concerned,

iii e

_22_

the name of the original kathedhar that is. -Abdul

Samad Sab, namely the vendor t.o'””t.he..9″def’eVnd.cant’s’*–_

property the name of ‘anubhavadh,ar’4″–§od’da’h’a:n.,t$maiiah,'”‘

namely, the husband of.>th-eydefendlant, of
land, the boundaries of land”.etcf:fiha:Vve all been
mentioned not onlyJ-in:”their:No_ti.fic–at§.o:’nissued under Section
4 r/w Section 17, ‘Vblotification issued
under Act. Substantial
particulars’i5ia:’%{§§ nnréentioned in the notification.
i-lerice,__ reliance placed on both the

3udgnnientis are u’n’stlsta_inable.

is the sale deed executed by the vendor,

V_ Samad Sab in favour of the husband of the

defendanft. In the recital, the full extent of the originai

.. Survey Number 22/2., its various owners and the actuai

V°e><.P–3.

(3/Z—r-

…23..

Therefore, the contention of the defendant thatthe Eands
under acquisition and the lands owned by the by

virtue of Ex.D-8 are different, is erroneous’..’:a’ndi.io:pi-oose’_d utoyu

the facts. Further, D.W.1, the”‘so–n.yof7_:the.”defc>ndaint;’-.has’

stated that, except the schediile
owned by the defendant;-.I:yt”‘~~i.s ais”o._statAeld_: “when the
Commissioner was ,-appointed.'”in/”Vt-h_e Clourtiianfid he visited
the lands for at that time.

Exp-40 indicates l~’l.ijs’C:e_!–lanieoiis case No.13/51-52

was fiiedAhoyDodd’ah’a.n_u.maiah seeking enhancement of
compe=.nsaition~. Hloweyer, no other particuiars are

fort’l1r;omi.vng._i:n”1Ex.v§’–4O. Ex.P»~35 is the letter written by

ltliie Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner

V_ the acquisition of lands for M/s.Mysore Lac

Va-nd..__”Pain’t Works Ltd., and the details of the entire

.. Viacquislition proceedings thereof. It is stated therein with

‘Regard to the details of the Government Orders, the date

if of handing over possession and the names of the owners

of the lands acquired. The name of Doddahanumaiah has

Q//was

E/}””*M

-24..

been shown as the person from whom the land’-‘ha-s been

acquired. It is also noted that in so far as ji:”ne.fa¢_q£Ji;_s4ition

of the land of other land owners are .of”–.._

Sri T.C. Rajasekhar Aradhya V

their respective cases were,__.refer’r_ed to
adjudication. However, of’D.o,_ddaha’numaiah, by
referring to the “stated that
Doddahanumaiah 16-9-1950 for
enhancerne:~n’t’:,;’»,:,1″‘pgnd.A exceeded the
{the Sub-Lludge, the case of
Sri transferred to the District Court,

Bangalore,’*9928-11-1951. Consequently, the District

passed orders on 12-3-1953 by fixing the

Ex.P-35 discloses that Doddahanumaiah

Vfi-adv-__’s’o-utght for enhancement. DW.1 states that the

.. ,clefe’ndant does not own any other lands except the land

E><.D.8. Therefore, Ex.P-40 namely, the application

9' seeking enhancement even though does not disclose the

Survey Number of the lands, it can be presumed that the

__25…..

defendant not only accepted the acquisition but had gone a

step further in seeking enhancement of thou’-«a’rnount

awarded. In the light of these materials, the

the defendants that Ex.P-4O..lacl.<sA

there is no material to show that '

therein and the defendi3n:vi;~-…are A"or.i_ei "th'e-~s'ame,"'is

therefore unsustainable anid—liayb.le'–~to reiectedgi

18. Ex.P–3 srih5wys’–ytii,at Number 22/2(c)

standing fitfi:’i’e ‘°na”me'”_”o’F””:Abdul Samad Sab, the
anu:b_hav_ada.rVolfv.lDo.dd-atjhanhumaiah, that is the defendant’s

hu_sbahd’-«.,along_ the boundaries and the extent of land

._yii3’as;»_s:ou.yght tob-e–«acquired under the provisions of Section

‘ shatvar’i’d:_”Sie’ct:i’on 17. Ex.P-2 is the sale deed executed by the

in favour of the Mysore Lac and Paint Works

inci’~~icua;ting not only the schedule property but various other

iproperties. Further it also discioses not oniy the schedule

property but various other properties were sought to be

acquired. Ex.P-2 wouid disclose that the scheduie property

as well as other properties having been acquired by the

Qtfszfmm

iifiu

<9'?'£:=ffL§')"

saga; 4:..-e~eo/rs

-25..

Government under different awards and the Company
having paid amounts to the Government, the pos’s:escsion of

the schedule iands were handed over to

18~1~1949. Ex.P–1 would show that in

handed over possession of the ia_ngdsin’1gues’ti.o..fi”tVgg;a;heV..,

piaintiff on the date ofV,ath4_e

registered _s’a-lief: deeii “dated
:t:~_a?~-Xérrm ” ‘ ~ ” ”

19. The defegndiant .r_el{eS~”o.n”t:h:Ve’–V’evidence of P.W.7

to C_:ont_e_nd’f’it.ha.tft«here”ha’s been no acquisition. He contends
that ‘P..,_W.i7 ‘h~a’s”:~.nQ;t’~./.i5’:t”ated anything with regard to the

af_”q’ui_siti0an iantds or with handing over possession

lanid the evidence being that of the then Assistant

Incharge of land acquisition, the same

‘wou!_d’iia:ve to be seriousiy taken into consideration to hold

.. _t_hat”~the iand of the defendant has not been acquired and

iands are concerned.

VV”th’at no possession has been taken so far as acquiring the

P.W.”? who was the Incharge

Assistant Commissioner of Land Acquisition has deposed to

‘irérn

-27-

the effect that compéete records are not available to show
that actual physical possession was taken the

State Government. Therefore, it is.

defendant that when the ev.i,d,ence_–“or’~.:t;he”*Asgsistant

Commissioner itself does not}st§pport’fir.thle:”cag§,,,,§5lfli_:the

plaintiff with regard to theu’a.cquisi’tiori .an’df:p’os<sess3ion, the
case of the plaintiff O..n":a:V._AApe.r3usal of the
evidence of P.W.7V it-..e:capn'é-.bef&i'e4e'rie,':'t:'ha.t_there is no denial
with regard the lands. In view of

the;acquis'i'lti'onV__v:hav§.n_g~.._ta-ken place as far back as in the
year"1._9l48,'the""dwi,_t'r'i–ess:J states that no documents are

ava"iEa.ble..V ,Therefore, the absence of the documents

be…_read to hold that the acquisition itself is non»

.i¥{io"reover, the witness has stated so on the basis

of the available material and has expressed ignorance of

.. rnatters which are not supported by documents. Hence,

lithe evidence of P.W.7 would be of no assistance to the

if case of the defendant. On consideration of the evidence of

P.W.7 it can be seen that nowhere does she state of an

We

-28-

absence of possession taken by the State. It_4.isV_:si.ta~t_ed by

her in evidence on more than one occasioTh”tha-t__j’sh.e’is

unabie to state with regard to the posse’ssioh,being ttak’eny«V’~–_

by the State in view of the’-._absenteé’aof-.reco’rdsi

however has stated ciee..rE_y..__withV”‘reoard theuyactiguiysitiofn
by the State with yregarditfo-‘..they property and
various other propVe”rtiesA, on the available
records with her. afibvsence of the records
and in by the witnesses
with over of possession of the Eands
by under Section 114–E of the

Evidence Actpfcoufd be drawn with reference to other

«,rhatelfriaivhj.”>.._The other materiai in the instant case is

the communication by the Assistant

SC-om–_r’hisvs’i”oner in favour of the Deputy Commissioner

A. .showing the details of the Eahds acquired, the owners of

“”._VV”th’e Eand, the date of possession, the date of reference of

if enhancement, the date of LAC cases in aii. Ex.P–3S is

exhaustive with reference to the cietaiis of acquisition and

-29….

ail matters connected thereto. Ex.P–4O wouidy..ha_ye,V_to be

considered in terms of Ex.P–35 and Ex.P–2_.§_w’ou.Ed-fhlaf-‘v{.é’ to

be read as evidence of taking of poss_e~ssEo:ii..:o’fi.:the Stateh-.

vide Ex.P–3. Therefore, in the :absence ofa~.d’i’rectje_ytdcri1ce”*

to hold actual possession -.b.eing”i.t_a’i<en,
being drawn is based on aivailabfie on record
and hence it has a consequence to
Ex.P–3, that Aoossessi.on_::in law has been
taken of the court beiow in
basis of Ex.P–1, P–2, P-35 is just
validilarid aplproorigatie":Hence the substantial questions of

la;w"in. Rsh are answered accordingly.

namely, the son of the defendant has

even though the land Was purchased by his

fati=ier:.in the year 1946 there are no documents to show

from the date of purchase til! the year 1977 the name

of the defendant was entered in the records. He has

stated that it is oniy during the year 1977 that the name of

the defendant was entered in the records for the first time

%,.zt.

_30……

not as a owner but as one being in possession. Hence, it is
clear that even though the land was purchase,d”‘»sby the

defendant in the year 1946, in view of_;t’h’e’.jVa.cqi;ii_§it.ion

having taken place the name of not”–.._

been entered in the records. It is only vslhen’the.’d.tele.nd’ant’-~._ 4]

forcibly took possession Volythe sVu.i_t”landsuV»i’n ye;ar’i1§i?s7
that he got his name entere’d_V1i’r; the record’s as a person in
possession of the

AV’il’l”l”–‘a,e.«.._f_:i:i*st’a_p’pe_liat.e Court has decreed the suit of
the plaintiff’toVa’..’gle.s:s’er”extent of 2 acres 25 guntas from

vvfhats..was decreed by the trial Court to an extent of 2 acres

=_3″? g’uArat_asl.._VThe appellate Court by placing reliance on Ex.P–

conclusion that the land acquired in Survey

lriurnfber’:22/2(c)2(a) being an extent of 2 acres 25 guntas,

A. thevsuit could not be decreed to an extent greater than

VV”what is acquired. Ex.P~3 refers to the acquisition not only

of the suit land but also of various other lands that has

been acquired for the purpose of establishing

we

Kai aawgraaezef vréff’

£FV:9&’7’Y
Z?’/<v-{SW 5120! 0

-32-

:3) gg;r:::§’£% ‘j'(..5′”3’}»éz’2€_.-? _
of 2 acres 37 guntas and not 2 acres 27:-guntfiaws a_s*held by

the first appellate Court.

In view of the aforesaid!’reasTons*_it*’iAs~..he-!.d..V:LLfhae_ti’the~.._ V

suit schedule propertycihas db-e_e’n ‘and
possession taken in acc’ordance “‘wVit”hVVVthat the
posession of the su’:iL~~..schedu_l:eVr~:’p._rVo’p-eérty been taken in
accordance with law below were right

in law in pi’a’€if’-‘IQ reliance o’n:.”t~he._d(§cuments Ex.P.1, P.2,

P.3′,.,V P.3S1 oral’-a_’rid other documentary evidence to

establish that» ac”c;ui’s.ition, possession, sale etc are in

a:;:c’or.dance’* law that the possession of the suit

«,:sche’d:lu!efitroperty has been taken in accordance with law

Courts below are justified in upholding the

ti–tie–..of plaintiff based on the documentation available

if A. on record.

in so far as the substantial question of law in RSA

No.1145/2002 is concerned in view of the reasons

WK”

…33..

aforementioned this Court is of the view that the

appreciation of the evidence by the first appellatecourt in

decreeing the suit of the plaintiff to a 2

acres 25 guntas from a decree granted.V__to’~.an:.Ae’xtent’ofu2*’.._

acres 37 guntas by the triai Coiirt p.ei<ye'r'se.._.: " V V

In the light of th_é"~….ansv\iers .toiv,_the""-Vvsubstantial

questions of iaw, RSA No.1_0f9/20.92 is'dismis_s€ed.

RSA No.1145/2o'o2 ifs'atId1wfed'.i'V_~by'— Setting aside the

Judgment,' -'3~9–2002 passed in

R.A.No.61/19.94 by-vsVt'ne..':i3–r,i'neipaI Civil Judge (Senior

vDivision;_)' '&t.cJMV, 'T-d_rfn:§ur,f AND confirming the Judgment &

ivdeeree dated 23e9–1994 passed H1 O.S.No.353/1989 by

the' Turnkur by decreeing the suit of the

if plaintiff; i

is .N__o costs.

sdie
ESBGE

Rsk/–