IN THE HIGH CQJLERT C)? K.-1\R§\§A'i"AKA AT B.ANGAL_(:)Rf*L
DATED THIS THE1'i""i)AY ()1: FEBRUARY 2{}:m§
BESFORE:
THE. I-{ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AD~'§A'N'13«B'§fRM§}fZ{_J_1§VY*-:7'
REGULAR SEC(')ND A¥?.P_EAI, 'Ng§'.'5()7 <)TE= "
BETWEEN:
S mt.Naxggzuutilnamma,
Wife 01' \/'21di:';.1j;1. ' V
Age: 59 ye'.11:~;,_ _ '
Vadiraja, . _ V . ._ V V
Son of Si1'e<~3._.div£i$:1Ch21£";{'j'-- _ V. "
Ag_:<:;_{3(j 3/';e.V;;'i";'sj";,;:,V_ V 3 *
Both are fe5idi'1ag ' '
Du1'gigL1di.'4-f" P;1ra'iiVss. Opposite: to Jumittaniia Miil.
Shimogt-1-577 20 E. RIiSP()NDE%iNT
(By Si"l1'i.S.V.Pl'di<L1Si}, Advocate)
:{: :5: :5: :{:
This Rfigtliill' S{3C()l1d Appczui is _i'_'é.1c:,!__Lmdgfii"SC<:tfioi'i'100 of ii
the Code of Civil Pi"OL,'€dLIl'€'._ 1908, Z;g£EiI1_$i théziJ':icig¢i11;3a}tiiiatnd'
decree dated:;22.l!.2005 passed h}i{¢KHV(i96/2002 tutth¢"§fi6 of.
the Additional Civii Judge (Senior .Divisi'o_:t)":_md C}'iM,:Sitiiii;1()ga,,
Liisittissiitg the appeal! and L'()1]'.i-i1'1'1--1,_iiiIi';'," thei.Ié1c;igi1te'i1ti11»iiiéi"'d}3ci"ee
dated: 19.1 l.2()()?. pa-1s.'x'cd in (..).S.No';«.t_U2.(()3 t)1'1m_thL' fiicg of the I
Additional C ivi! .iLIdf__I€ (_Ji1h*ioi' Di\"~'ii*,iiii(J'i1.)i.' SiiiI}}()g£'t ai"i'ci etc.,
This Regular Second -i.Ap_T)t3'(1ii7ih.11t)§fiig. E1€€:I1 heard and
reserved on (")9.()'2.2iH() tutti"'co'mitigf,(')it f()i'"proiiotsncertteiit of
Judg__ment this day, 1i'.7.'::L.i':()L1i'__E d;:1itJes"'t=:.d"t1tfc V.'f'g)_lV}Vow'i11g: -
i7§}%§GMENT
Hcatrd {tiara Com l'1.~?u.('3ii'ii(')iil"'f..iTii('3 pzartics.
._':'iT'i'!.11i iLlE in
Jatnttttry E993, when the defentimtt sought to Cl}C£'(')E1CE}...Qt"t»l'ttt}i':E? "tat:
the plaintiffs property by tztying f"t)LiI1('1L1'l.iV(_.)p£'}F'~-.V.f'(}tT:"f:tlt;1'§16't'
c0nst:'uct'ion -- the suit ettme to he t'i;b1ed._The._;)hti'nt_E't't's'..V;;te'he<;i'_po:'t'f.tmtind':
described as Sehedute - B.
The defendant deniec1_t:t':e p't_z1in_t ttl'E*;2g;tt"'1'ttns and chtéttted that
after purchase of her site°t':'ae:jtsut'i:1g__50'; feet, she had
c01'tst1'Ltcted tt tttmf-ée Llfltd 'i'a:1t't"t{¢'iEEt'uI.
the pubhc 'a:1]&nt1eI'bu'r1s{'t't;t1'ee,A""t)n" the 1"t0rthern side of her pmperty
and h2t§s'exe1"cis.ed. Apt):9L§E3S$tt)E} over the sztme, since the year 1967.
It WE1t§ C()1't7t:1A{iE}fidc'fid that the City Municipal} Cottncit had ésstaed L1
ni,-t_ie'e__Vd:t'te"'~._I33",v't?.E981 cutting upott the. detettdant to remit
."'a1iett';tt.ét)t*-t" Chaltgefi; in a sum of Rs.I._378/--. whieh wan paid.
:1~¥e'ttene.,.« it etaimed by the defendant that she had perfetsted her
' '*pt,)VE5St3SSit)1} of such e.ner0ttelmtett£.
5
It/eVtvtct't)ztehed H)' X St)' feet of
9
her title by way of' adverse possession over
sehedtile A and B pi'0pe:*ty."
It is also pointed out that there was no issue l'i'z1me_d 2.-ts
i"egai1is the nebulous claim of aiciverse pussessiuii by theldeVl'i:ii'da'nt'
and hence. the declaration made in favour of the-..giei'eii.1ll21, was the sister of plaintiff NSs'eSSi(')I'} ham-:in;_z_ been held in
favour of the defendant is wholiy iilegui and perverse.
it is further' gtnointed out that the encrc)aehn1e1t'a: pmperty bei11g'pVg;'Iy';.»
The Counsel places s'ei%.;mee."(5'h tE'z-.5' f"t§3i<)wi11g Lvl"LAIAE1"1AtV")1'iEi(iSI
{J ) M. 1)mu' t--'. Murlzur, (2007;'-3_5<ff(_.' " V
(.2}f)(liT?(iJ(J}v'?"Ct'V'V ttirflVGwtrpczduppcz Mallappa
Paznuzs/zerfs, j1;!e_ /99¢)' i§a}¥t:3
and prays-vthztt the V-ztppehéii a'i1.c.)u/ed.
'£3, i5o.m1'a. the counsel for the respondent contends
as tbikiwszv ‘ V’
Thattghe substantial question of law fretmed by this Court
effect of the jucigmetzt zmti decree in O.S.N(>.4()8/1986
VA net. at all a substamtial question of law. And even if the same
3
E 1
were to be tmswered against the defeiidtmt the jtsdgiheitts of the
Courts below would not warrant ihter’ference._ the ref’ei’ei1<_je to
that 'jtldglllfifiti by the C.'tirt.~; i”)t3i<)\»k wtls; 0E'Ii}= one circtit11.s_t';ttiCe';ii'i<f3
11'}{lI€I'i'c3.i evidence in arriving at findings, which _w_ei_*e~–..h()t.i_:entirely
on the basis of that fitdgment.
it is contended that the pat’e.ht tidii’ii_s.t_tsti’ue’tipei”ty in the yeaf ‘–1..'<.i)i:¢f}7A the claim of
ildVCl'SC p0ssessi<)n by the Ci:<*.-'i""t";"'iEdt:l't}{i€';&"'C3t'!_' Sehedulie 'B' property.
it t";~:._ e's>;e:;’;~:i:’:)n:__twei’ sui’t’~sehedule I-3 property is p€E’E’E1.iSSii)iC and
iteha.b1e”:-,nd..iiiit ‘,i’l’i$iii”€.gul’d, seeks to place reliance on the foliowing
E1UIhi€)1’i{iiiCSZ ”
fa)” ti-.–/m Bc’iim,\’:(z/wt’) .8′:-i’zm?I’ 3′. Ki:-‘(tit Ap;)uLsr) Stmnti AIR
,5!/§I§}'(‘f’I2€? Court 1663, arzrfg
(Z9) Karlmlaka Wcz/gf’1)’m’1m’ 1′. Smte off’ Knmzata/ca 19.95 (4)
Km’ LJ .326,
to contend that 2: dei”er1d;1r1£ is cmitlcd £0 Ez1};t;’ ii.1L1:-:;{;1.’lVi’}%.
inconsisieni pleas in the written statement.
The Counsel also places i’€liL1jhC€ ‘(‘)i1« 1′{o1′;*cI’;’!2_&z’–.L);igkg({Li’
Kodam v. Sa.w’Iribart’ Soupczm GL1j(;.:*,’ AI]? 1.999 SC c:zr’zc1’j’;}€ “i%’E “L
Van/z;}iz’1′}4 2()()..? SC
4548 E0 substzlntizlte that Vt}*–..c. é;L1b:’§ta1;-mil”~–;;_i»:.e$’E~ic)ns of law E”ra:nc’:d
by this Court do 11m. :11c€:L,-wzshe.1*ec1L:i5i.L€’Cr_itg:’I’i%;-£mad hence. the
appeal be:’i”ejéVc’teA<i15.:,;s 11:31: 'gix9i*;..1}_: 1"i.~;c:_E(§";1:1y .SUbSE£tI1EiE11 questions of
law.
7,. _V ir1′”ih_é ::b.m-‘¢’v. %3Az1L:!«:g1’0L:mE, in.~;€)f2:1′ as the L]Llt’3SEi(m
WhcIhc–1’C’the’A ju’Li.g:11ezn Véfiti decree passed in O.S.No.408/1996 in
f;c!”-:'(V)L~!f of Ev1’1 é». CvT€T’énd:Z1I11 couid be reiiecf upon to defeat the claim of
the 1:>Eé1««i,.r’:tit_’_’iT”‘u1u;E” zzcivzzmx-2 the cam: 0%” ihc d11c)wing reasons:
5
It was it :_~;uit filed etgztittst one Savithrunmta by the
defeardant. on the ;1ile_2;ati<):1 that she was the ow11et"r.o't7.._suit
propezty, at that point of time and we»; seeking to.,j'rt'te1'fere:"Witt': '
her property. That suit was decreed ex5~p'3't'te.¢ ltjs
I
Sztvitlmtrnma, w'.t..s dead even as eztrh, ti:s__th:f ye.2tr'l_–9(3'7._ r.E.k{e11ii'~.
the suit could be held binding on h'et"'i~eg21l rep1_'ese1itati'*..zesl in the
absence of 21 Challenge to tvhe~~:;_;1111e:".l they lf:;1§ll' no claimhlotrer' the suit
property on the date of the ih ye_';f.rf–V~'1987, since the
property was s()ld_.:to:t1lre_plti'ittt§t'flh The trial Court
having aeeeptedpthe. re21sc):.iit1.g"tha.I:S':1vrthr'a1mn2t, was the sister of
plaintiff rr..t).2__zt.ndthe~:efere',' .,the__pl21ftntiffs were aware of the claim
set up by therdefendztnt'"o'vertijle Suit Schedule '8' property is; not
terrable._– .. Th£.su"c;tVnt"1ot'* be s£:s;t.ained on legal principle. The
ljlttdélpttieht E"éir:dV'l'~'5=¢C1'ee«lét"O.S.No.4()8/1.996 could not even have
'treeh eited'*v;1§§leVi.tie't}ee of ti plea of adveme pos.~;ession as :'1gai:1st
the pl_2rl11tif_t'§.'e~'i._The Courts below were not justified in law in
1
‘pltteingl l’§:EJl2iVflCV€ on the said judgment and det:r’ee in finclirag at ease.
44 ‘ ‘for’ At tie ferrdamt. g
$4
The §.;€311Cl’;:ll rule of evidence in respect nl”_}Ltd;_:e1nez1t.s’ in
personam of L1 competent Court is conclusive proof in ii
subsequent pmeeeding between the same panties or their privies
(persons whose relationship to the same right of §3t”c)pe1’£y*’i$’ ~:.1tutii:;tl
and successive) of the matters ztetuztlly deeidedll fi’r~:)_1i”t
judgement itself. But judgements in pt:e~st;5’z1at~t~: ‘_E’1L;)l é.;ntr.:{t” p¢.tftes7ut’e”.
not at all admissible in evidence (See: Se.e’tion 4l_.’+;– T’lte lI°}d.l’amlV.
Evidence Act. 1872. Sau’El<tlIj:~v\}’l1’e_tllte.;’.~:he clefenclant ha-tcl perfected title
by ztdveyee p<)S§es§Vi<3n.,v'* ml'-re.§peet of suit schedule B property as
« .r
helal by 1l1e5'lC..'0t1:.'1As below. with re'l"ere:'1ee to the pleadings and the
e\t'écle':i1'et3&lAwil'iu.hzuée-.t-1) be answerecl in the tteggative. in View of the
fol lt)wl":–1 g ;_:_iz{1'i mg e i re u msttmees:
3
In
The doctrine of :.1dverse possession wouid arise oniy when
the pztrty has set up his own £idV<il'St' titie. diselaiining t_4}*re;'t-i.§iies.of'
the owner mid est;1biishin§._t that he Yellitlilltid {i}{'Cit1ASix'~.r§i}' *
possession to the knowtedge of the t)w:i*ei';..host.'ite to"rh.i';;: tiitvlegttncii
the owner had aieqtriesceti to the same A21/Im!/i'c'z,i= 'Ki-'.{.s'l'i.”1’c’zIc> of Rctjcz,sI/um. vs.
Hc’lrpr)0! 5vtT’}’IgH/1′.{2.tv;’Q())5′:VtSC_ (>52 j. Littiiess and anti! there is adverse
animus, mete pcissetssitinrover”the statutory period of Eimitation is
not strffit:-iei’it for the suen has been speeifieaiiy raised in the pieading,
put in”issu.e atrtd then cogent and convincing evidence led on id
“rnxLii’titude of points the plea: of adverse possession cannot be
..;t1t{i’gt.¥;:ditsee: AIR 19591>m;%147t1:’1:;).
l9
po.<;.s'ession of the land, wl1e1"ea1s in terms of Articles; ()4 and 65 of
the Limitation Act, E963. the position has unde1'5;one J-it eo.m__plete
change insofar as the onus is coneernetl: once at p:tt't},;jM;i?s"g'SV'es..li'%s
title, the onus of proof shifts to the other patrty to"p;m{¢-.he Vitus: V'
perfected his title by adverse. possessio1'2=;.
(See: P T Mm-’21Tt”l1:’k/(ct;–ma Rem-thy;tz,Rmm;;}m (‘.?()tt}7-J Si’,
M.1)umt’ vi Mtif/IL1, (2007) 3 SCC 11}? M
In the case on hand, (thedvelt’el11d_;11ithatenot eategorieztlly
assetted the pEe:1§~vo§’«.g3tdxre1″é:e §t’)se§es’s;io11.§_”-Qnflthe other hand, the
primary t§lztitaal’t’v.xt;:$ that’ th’e«:;e is no enes’oaeh1ne.nt of the suit
property. ‘l’het”e%is’t3tt’1l’y.:.it.lite.oni«e” plea in the etlternz-ttive. more by
way £117″l’:’1$t1I’E11lC€hitgitlllst the plaintiff stteeeeding to establish
V”1_etiet'<:)atehnlentlofflsuit schedule 8 property by the defendant.
Hen_Ce.._SuC'i't.it~v.ple;i;'ol' adverse possession C2-Ef1l'l()[ be countenaneed
at all. "The"—-lCt)'ti'fts below were notjL1sti§"ied in 21CCt3p£i1'1g the same.
*T:l'et..i4s tallies us to the next question whethe.r it vt-as open to the
-.j(tefe:t1<l;.int to t_,'t}Ill.€l'lLl that she ltéid not en<;:'oael1e:.§ the suit pro§)et'ty
3
2 0
while incideiitztlly Ct)l’tt.t3I1(ilt§g that in the event the phtintiff w’.t$
able to esttxblish that there was in fact such eiiemachment W this
ottght to be held in §’;tV-xitei’ of the tleiehtlziitt tn sL:p.p’t)tft’t«.._’her
contention that she had pe:’t’ect.ed her title by adverse;j5’t)sse§sEel: ‘
required in law”.
The Counsel for the re.s;p0hdeht h£i1′:%__pi;1_C€(l l’iEi3_itl’¢1l”tC€’~(lt1.i}dl1R~.u
2007 SC 1663 to support his ct)ih’teitt.it1n Ii”l2t.T, . i”t;c()liisiste.nt
pleas were tuhiiissible. ‘l’li’e»,t’2tCtis i_)t’t’tE?i_;it c;’;1.se E1121}? iisefully be
noticed to examine whetheifVV_itV’Co_ul<l_ pfevéseti ..i-'nth service. The
appeal therein ;t1'?_.)seE:1:':u't i)Vi';i'Zl éteiit the Ap;i'1'ti'tio's'i. The plaintiff had
elaimetl i7~_E()"'§'l&l'«'Cfii'1ti'i~':jAl;§Er;Cii'2£:llilt_'~iiléllii share oi the suit pm;)erties
jointly withiithe dete.i_1tlt:nit.s;..:!E to 7. The said defendants had
'i"SLtppt:ii*tied; pl.;1Eiii'tiff9..«ease. in the first instance. However.
id¢t'et1i_dantisv.,Sl:6"l_4"–§ought an amendment to the written statement
that pl;2.intitfi"éind defendants 3 to 7 could not z1C'ql.liI'€ any right
A or Ainte1*eist,_,ih the joint fantily p:"ope1'ties 2-is tliey were illegitimate
t.ei1il'* Mi!/5′ C(}J’?’![‘)(N’1_\’ 1.1′;-1-“lira! 1.25′. I.oc’2’i2a Rum two’ (‘7(;;j1}9c2z’2_\’
(1976) 4 SCC’ 320. The High Court heid that Ltii()\f\/;iiii1i}_1_’i-Sit}-t$:i1i’:
amtmdment wouid totaliy displace the cage of [iii”Piélifiiifi’i’~?;1i1’€i
right to get the partition decree.
in the above backgroun(i,__'”–the appeal wzjis ~~{4_1jefo..=.’e1 the
Supreme Court. While ta1<,ing notie——-of"V-the:.._t'cwEEc)Wi–ng observation
of the Privy Couneii in the Case'(_)£'-..f§+f¢.2.Siziii-w{*M).':1 vs. Maung Mn
Hnuang AIR 1922. PC 249.
i”A_.i-‘i*_rtile–s. ‘t.’)’§i,i:”v_C()ilvifE8u”.t.1E’:3i 13()I’i]i1′]g_ but
}_}E”(‘)’\ir’i1i.$i’.’i’QF1..V_.S’i%i11ICn’Ci’ii2_d .t(,= secure the proper
‘ ad’miiti:;t_i4atifo.ni’o.fijas’tice and it. is; therefore,
eséentialoVtE12it:’=_tiie’§’ shouid be made to serve
and be i”st:b<_tg/'tiinate to that purpose, so that
'’V;.ii’t'(iiLlid always be Eiberaily exemised, but
“no-iietheiess no power has yet been given to
enable one distinct Cause of action to be
substitttted for another, not to change by
means o’t’amend1tten§ the subject matter oi’
the suit”.
8
The Apex Court has gone on to lay clown that it is an equally
well setileci principle that a pi’a1ye:’ for {~lEH€l”iClETlCflE of the pvlV’dl§i.i.l’£1E1Ll
21 prayer for amendment of the written statement stan;l.§’_’oh’eii’if7fe:i’e:_;;;’= _
footings. And that addition of a new bgroLiiti’d”‘c3f:’_<iel'e.r1ce or
substituting or altering :1 defence or tiikiniglii~i'ieohsiS*telht pl.e;is"'i.n:
the written statemem would not be~Vob_jeci"iohab_leiadding, *
altering or substituting 2-1 !1(3"':'.\{ cau$.e"'ol'ilL_a;ttio;a in the'plzi.iht may be
objeciionable.
Board, l§tlzi1gcilIr1i’re:lii.llSIe1lIea :'(‘l):]f~,.K'(.”£?:l’lC.1I’C1/((1 1995(4) KCII’ L J 326.
4Tllee.faCts i’::.{_hat case were follows:
.’ ~A.St.a4fe..Vi)f’ Karnataka had filed a suit against the
Ka;?1ia’ta1’i<;i'lW'a–ki"Bozi1'd and another claiming thai the soil property
'.belonglerl State and that it was erroneously notified as 'Wald
_ '~i§i'r)pe.i*t}; under {he Wakf Aci. in the ;1lLeri1;1tive. it was claimed
6
24%
This ruie is embedded in Order VIE Ruie 8 and Order VIII
Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Pmcedute, 1908 — Both the pE'(.)’if..iSiV()E1S
insist that grounds of aiteniative ciaiins are to be st;-1teei~~::;e_t;>a:_fifetteiy)
It must be shown that each of the iiacciitsisli-2:.*.1.t_:’*~eiaii.ii1s_ are i
mzlintztinable.
Inconsistent pleadings ai”e7no.t_ proh-ibiteti i..the_VViitii§gaht
who avails himseif of the ifight to p_ress_ an iiicoiisisvteiitiieaise and
etidea1vES_1f i§1’W;:$e1*i’E i’i1?if;iii’ihiE”{1S€1i” entangled
in iE}BXEI’iC3bi€§’dViffiQt§’§E}iV’, i”i(J1-‘._i:__\i’ideri–?:e’~giddziced in Siipp(‘)E'{ of two
absoiuteiyaincoiisistetii-».,e:tse4s=yt?iiieii are imitually destructive can
hardly be expeeteci to st-_ci’tiiie7 eonfi<,Eence. (Br'-mbczn. Mo/Hm' Vs.
A '2}{«£f¥¢'?1L4._(:1:': 131'); ttttt I' –
” ._ “Eii”_t..|1__eugzise on hand, it cam hardly be said that the
-tiefentitint Elsi:-i'{1 position to sustain the alternate pleats put forth for
ii.i”i»€:iie’yv.t;tt”e to be accepted site would have to pieaci and establish
.__”t’ii2it§ not oniy had she €FIC1″OEi{‘:h€-d public ltind to the North of her
l–J
‘J1
pmpeny to the extent of ll} X 50 feel bui that she l1ac_l_ also
eneroaehed {he suit p:’0perI’},-i £0 the extem of 10 X 50 f<:'el.'–v:.t_"0.lt"he
south of the p1'0pe.1'{y. There is no such plea and hence llfihili,'-Vléi'l'llT'1 V'
respect of the suit p1'0perty falls foul V. ()~f«'lhE".
Code 0fCi\/il Procedure, 1908.
lns0f:;u* as the contention L1l:_>f~;ta1ilal’L~i.2l1leeieslligheof luw
alrise in the present ;1ppezlz.l.,zl:’*E$’ also:1g;e.l;:;;:.%el»l,,lllizwiing to the
several iSSL1€S th21t’3121Vl/e is no doubi
that the qL1es«t~ir};,n§ questions of law
applying decisions of the Apex
Court as
in the “1*::su~ls, t;l__1eA’::fi3’p.;’»’:~l4;1l is allowed. The judgemenz and
C}.f¢tl:6Atrla1llHC(3t:i”{ as well as of the First Appellate Court
‘ma l1§.m1.a_g,-e {1s;.l_cl_e. The suit of ihe plaimifl” is deereecl as pmyed
for w.i__ih c_r..’ast§.j..~ A
$5] –
JUDGE
ll “E19/sf