'(BYSRI:PMAHESI~IA,ADV. FOR R1
in: THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BAN(}A1;01~2§i
DATED THIS THE mu DAY OF FEBRUARy52o(§9%F
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.
R.S.A. NO. 2o<i2A% % A
BEIWEEN
1 MSHIVARUDRAPPA 5
PRESIDENT,<SRI.VEER&BI'I£LDRAVSWAMY
SEVA H£)RAYAI.A, 'BEGUIk:" HOBLI
GUNDLl.II?E'I'5{CHAMARAJA..\IAGAR"DIST.
' ' ...APPELLANT
(Ema; isik AISVQCATE )
1 H__BBASAPPA -.
,,I€1AJ{)R, sf 9_.LA'rE PUTFANANJAPPA
% .RyQ.;1<3RAYAI.;a%--v1LLAGE
V ' » I' BEGIIRHOBLX, GUNDLUPET
V _ cmwikwmaew DIST.
2 X .__THE _SEC.RETARY
'HORAYIXLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
PANCLHAYAT HEAD QUARTER
~ : ,Ho1eAYALA, BEGUR HOBLI
c;urmLU1=E'r TALUK,
" CHAMARAJAHAGAR mam.
RESPONDENTS
12.2 W SERVED) ég
THIS RSA FILED U/S.10O CPC AGAINES1″ _
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED 16.3.2002 PA_SSED’EN’- A
R.A.NO.96/2000 ON THE FILE OFAATHE c1’vILfij=JUD(3E
(SR.DN.), NANJANGUD, ALLOWING TH.E_ ;a.PPEAL_ AND
SE’I’TiNG ASIDE THE JUDGMENT “DATE-_D=
31.7.2000 PASSED IN o.s.No.294/9.2 ON THE, $11.3 <
THECIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND -GUND1;UP.ET..
THIS RSA comm} ON FdR.ir:EA1éINt.§THIe DAY,
THE comm' DELwEREDjmE»emL:,owINe:;~
a…………………..v
The in 0.8.
No.294 of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.)
and respondent was the
plaintiff the was the 1″ defendant in
the sa:i:1.,s:uit4. ° ‘rhe..:stA:es§§ondent/plajnufi filed the suit
egaiiasj; mezaii respondent only for the relief of
restI’aming’ the defendant therein
with the plaintjfi”s peaceful possession
CI?.L.j0_”y;IIlCnt of the property mentioned in the
to the plaint, namely, the Backyard ( Hittalu)
‘ fee “s;ite.ated in Horayala Village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet
“Taluk, Chamarajanagara District, measuring East-West:
-%»/
24% feet and North-South: 60 feet lying to the .
p1a.int;ifl”s house. It is the specific case of pg 3* htk3%C,Et;ti1*z*ht&eee&<oo
that he is the owner in possession of u
property and that the =
Authorities of the Village
manner of right, title o1f_ efiithchodule
property, are trying V his lawful
possession and ehjoymeht ' " éubsequemly,
the appellaxgt' as the 2'14
defendant' – £1 :3:-53*-'t Panchayat
represented by in the Trial Court
on service brtthsuitkeosinzxraztans and filed the Written
"stgteI:1:ent;}_ 'ease of the plaintifi's. It was
the suit property belongs to the
and that the plam' tiff is not in
possessio;:.1 had enjoyment of the same, as such, the
not entitled for the relief of injunction. It was
contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to
@
my the suit and the suit is not maintainable in the
of Section 304(2) and Section 133 (1) of .
Parishads, Taluk Panchayat, Samithis anti:
Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayaté Ga
impleadment of the 2114 defendanI;,'V._}i"e.V_
the written statcammat filed
the Mandal Panchayat, V _ V'
2) In t;ne_1igm parties,
the trial Court t1 xe
i) ‘$ihc.§ti;r§r.. proves that he is
” }a£vfu l and enjoyment of
5 .. LA tfié on the date of filing of
wit ? _____
the plaintifi proves that the
V. at Point ‘O’ was put-up by his
.. g_g’andfather Devappa ?
* Whether the defendants proves that
this Court has no jurisdiction to try
/1′
iv) Whether the plaintifi is entitled for’_t{1ie”;-‘..: if
relief sought for in the plaint ? ‘ V
V) To what order or T .. 3
3) During the
himself as PW.l and ‘mere xiéimcsees as
PWS. 2 and 3 . The J?”ar__1chayat was
examined as examined
himself as é.?§1d~ Ex.D1 to D5 were
4) sides, the Trial Court on
_- Qf as documentary evidence, by
31.07.2000 dismissed the suit of the
h§iemg% the plaintifi’ has failed to prove ms
and enjoyment of the schwule
L Being amazed by the said judgment and
passed by the trial Court, the p1a’mtifi’ em
§./
appeal before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), e
RA. 1%()).96 of 2000.
The Lower Appeilate Court V’ »
sides and on :re~assessmcnt of oizjal :1, f
evidence, by judgment ciaterfi .
appeal with conditions. ::eu1’ee
the Lower Appellate points for
consideration. . V
1) Court erred in
‘ h(_)ldi_I1§’ p}amtm” is not entitled
_ ‘ ‘V fol’; injunction as sought
A V’ for? V
‘ VA the judgment and decree of
‘ A Court is erroneous and mat;
on facts and circumstances of
H “the case ?
(1
iii) What order?
6) The Lower Appellate Court held’ _
Eight: of the contents of the J
Panchayat, which are markedjas E:{s–.J? .’19
from the oral evidence of WVS. itis the
plaintiff has proved
possession of ififiixce the suit
was only for of title was
not in that View of the
matter anew: the principles of law laid
down by the Supreme Court that,
of 1mm’ oval:-le property
kélxfiend his possession even against the
who tries to dispossess him except in
of law, held that the pla:’nt1fl” is
. for a decree of permanent injunction aminst the
g
defendants from forcible disposscssion from the ~_4
schedule property. In that View of the matter, tlié st
Appellate Court allowed the appeaisnd ‘_ K V’
defendants not to interfef’?
possession and enjoyment of
till he is evicted from the ‘suit of
7) Being ‘ th€%%%Saidsi3adgnaent and
decree Court, the 2*”!
defendant is Second Appeal.
8) appeal was admitted for
of th’e.,.faL}uwix1g substantial questions of
‘t A the Lower Appellate Court is
2 .. in decreeing the suit despite
afindingthatthe plaintiflis not
the owner ?
t ii) Whether the plaintiff who fails to pmve
lawful possession cf the suit property
@
could be granted a decrm for
injunction ?
iii) Whether the Civil %
jurisdiction to try aj”i’n”att¢1′., ”
involves claim by or V _ ”
Panchayat in of” a
property in View of 2:2
9) Upon’ ‘ . V ” fippeal, the
P1aiBfifi’/R3$PU§ii1¢i:i€«’;’–_V Nog%I%.%:%hars% appeared % ttmough his
learned ‘noiice on respmxdcnt No.2-
Gram as suflicient and it has
_ V mmaixged
.V V” hgve heard” “”” the learmod counsel appear]. Hg
‘(Sn perused the records 9f the Courts
x I ’11) [as noticed above, the 2″‘ dcfendmlt, who
sabsequently implcaded before the max’ Court; did
(M
10
not file any independent written statement. He A4
to have adopted the written statement
Defendant No.1. Defendant No. 1–Mam1a1 & kk
its written statement had the
not the owner of the suit ‘setit
property belong to the the
plaintiff is not in Though the
trial Court of the Lower
Appellate said judgment, has
decreed directing the
defendarvizte’ riot’ with the pla’mt:ifi”s
possession in due process of law.
_ suit was for the Belief of
only. The piainee” did not seek
_decIe£;ati(;§21′ his title to the property. Therefore, in
‘ W H ‘T _a the Courts below were not required to go
“flee question of title of the parties. The only
.:: q-uestion which was required to be considered by the
11
Courts below was, whether the plaintiff was
possession and enjoyment of the suit
and whether the defendants K V’
possession and enjoyment of the 7f.
dismissed the suit mainly the
plaintiff has not prove’-:d . i.s’*1;he the
property and he is in the same.
However, the VVon”V§.te’–appreciaflon
of the finding of fact
that the V’ was in possession
and as on the date of the
suit and possession of the property.
” ‘E*.he of notices issued by: the Manda}
Exs.P19 and 20 indicate that the
in possession of the suit property.
” VV”The oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 clwrly
i.i.est3ia:§Vjlisi1es that the plaintiff’ has been in settled
‘ ‘fiossession of the schedule property for couple of ywrs
‘M
12
prior to the filing of the suit. It is new well-settled’
by catena of decisions of this Court and the
that, a person in settled possessio_n…of_ 2
protect and defend his possession 7-]
owner and the true owner take’
property in accordance by due
process of law. ‘plaintfif is ill
possession of es V’ of the suit,
and that the plaintifi’ is
termed Lower Appellate
Court, is justified in granting
the relief of Lpe1inane1ot_»’i:fi:i1ncfion to the limited extent
‘V enjoyment of the property shall
the defendants until the plainofi is
‘n1..(1fie’::pmcess of law. Defendant No.1, who
1 _ to-be the owner of the property, is at liberty to
action in accordance with law for getting
:’ vgooeeession of the property. The order of injunctzion
@
13
granted by the Lower Appellate Court is not an absolute
order against the defendants and the Defendant No;l[ieV
at liberty to initiate action in accordance _
eviction of the plamtifl from the l ll
Appellant] defendant No.2 has not:’eet+_u;§
in respectégflschedule pmpefiy,’«.g3pr has” oonteiideciee
he is in possession ofthe as lie”
adopted the written No.1, it is
clear that acoordtx1g__to lie the owner
of pro ” ‘ has no manner of
right, eee,’ ox? the schedule property.
Therefore, he” any grievance against the
the mwer Appellate Court. The
appellant has filed this appeal
_i11dieates..__~’tt3.a;t~”lie is trying to interfere with the plainmrs
l H H ‘T ‘possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
though the appellant has no manner of right
ll ‘eve? the property. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court
@
14
is right in decreeing the suit against boihw
defendants and granting relief to a Iimited 4′ H
14) No doubt, the plainti1f’edntex}&.ed x
in possession of schedule _
However, as noticed earlier, the S101′
permanent injunction title
was not required’ to i’ because,
Defendant No.51′ ‘iilcgiie . file schedule
pmperty V. Panchayat, . it
cannot Court has no jurisdiction
to exlmrmfi of permanent injunction
_ . end A
1’s)%ef’e«eeese¢een 2 11 of the Karnataka Panehayat Raj
_ Aet:,A as under:
n I “‘2.?..iv!:.:. Decision of claims to property by or
mm Panchayat – (1) In any
village to which a survey of lands other than
lands ofdixlaxily used fer the purpose of
w
15
agriculture only has been or shall
extended under any law for the time A’
force, where any property or any 03?:-. i
over any property is 0:931
of the Gram Panchayat, or byyaiiy
against the Gram PanCl1eyat”,A._it i
lawful for the Assistanti’C:ii1:missie§3e1″
enquiry of wklichdzie
to pass an order _
(2) y Afiy bf? OM61′
made uritieriiigjiéetibeeefion «{ 1) . appeal to
the the decision
of the –.i3e3j1i:,5(‘- Coxximiseioner shall be final.
7:3) – “sham be deemed to
have “notice of any enquiry or order
this if notice has been given in
‘ V’ ” the manner.
‘A does not create any bar on the Civil
~ entertaining a suit in respect of immovable
Vi lying within tl1Cj1.1I’iSdiC’l’.i0I1 of Gram Panchayat
3
16
16) In my opinion, as the plaintifi has
admitted that the schedule property is owned ~
Panchayat, Section 21 1 of Panchayat Reg ‘V
application to the suit filed for of
injunction by the plaintifl’, who
possession of the property.
interfere with the eituatcd
within its jurisdiction, accordance
with Law. If g’ of a property
compxaigasa’ by the autlaoriufos of
Gram due prooess of law,
the i11lA’£’1*’–‘e’qictL;’i’c’Jr1″1.:V of cannot be said to be
et1t,ertaiVi1V'”o vst1it for the relief of permanent.
his possession as long as he is not
adopting due of law. Therefore,
7{I peeeh01F1 me Lower Appellate com; is just1fiod’ in
the relief.
, as to
1’7
17) In the light of the above diecussions, _
not see any ermr in the judgment of the
Court decreeing the suit of the _p1a.i1_’ififl’f ” V’ V
extent. No prejudice is caused 77:.
account of the decree
Court. Therefom, in ifieriv 0f A1.’he.. ciiécussieii, the
substantial questions ef ietir, «Lthe time of
admission of mg’ mcordingly.
There are :10′ such, the appeal
is liable eiobe A
dismissed with no order
Sd/’-~
Judge