RSA No.72')/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT 01+" KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT D1-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY 05' NOVEMBER, 2009
BEFORE '
THE HoN'BLE 1v:R.JUsT1cE B.s.PAT1L=
REGULAR SECOND APPEAMIQ.72§9}'2be?j
Between: V ' '
SM'I'.POOJAR ERAMMA
W/O GURUPADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEJAEQR,
RESIMNG AT WARD I\§(.J;\_r'l'i__
CHAPPARADAHALLI A
ANANTASAYANAGUDI -- _ . *
HosPE'1'--5s3 201._---_ " ; APPELLANT
(By Sri.$V.V.S'1_'1TAai;e'i;_1-i_,&V Adv '
And: A
SR1.MA_LLl sH'1'vAPPA'«
_ S/O BASAPPA MALL:
AB.:1-MT .50 TEAM'
REsI.Dmg'; vAT,Ti~MMANA.wRA
'QA'"L>,AG--, _( 'zA_}f)vAG_E§EST]~<E{jf'1'. RESPONDENT
‘ (B5iAdv)
Thisappeal is rm; under Section $00 of cpc against the
– “judgment. and d€CI'(‘{.’ dated 24.02.2007 passed in
‘ “R’,A,._Ne’;_«92,*’2006 on the flit: of the Addl. Civil Judge (S1”.D1’a.),
._’_HCspef, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment
and decree cit.12..07.2U(…)€; passed in O.$.1\E0.§.50/O5 on the fiie
V’0’f’the Prl. CiVi1Judge (\.§r.If.)1″:.), 81, JMFC, Hospet.
RS/«\ No.729/2007
This appeal eerning: on for admission, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
J UDGIVIENT
1. ln this second aippeal, the appellant is
judgment and decree passed by the learned 1′-_’.–i’;i'(ll..:iiflifiilidudge
(Sr.[)n.), Hospet, dismissing R.A.92/:2_VOO,6.sail1d2eenfirrning_.
dismissal of the suit {).S.N0.]W:’>0__./OS llilvelél
herein.
2. The plaintiffiappcll’ai__n’t._filed -«._§:.),_S’;N0.150/05 seeking
perrnane-nt injunction ;:.i;;;z:lin_s_ti’ t.hei.ldel’en–‘tiaiitérespondent herein
in respeel of l1lii~§.V)’I”L_}:£:).fi3’I’_iZy bearing No.229 measuring 40 ft
X 20 ft situated of Hospet town. E1: was her
contention that she 1-3’;-l::;_ ipuf in possession of the shed as a
__lessee aamonthilye V1″(“.l’%I£:1l of R3125/~ xvhieh later came to be
in’e;¢6£-ii1is:%cl The plaintiff asserted that she was
pay’l1}gl the”rer:tsa.te_:..th(> aiefendant from time to time by sending
money-9’erc§eréf.’j_ ..5’It wzis also urged than the defendant had
«assured her {hat in ee:1:~;g: he were to deeiric: to sell the property,
l avoiuld first pr<1rl'm"{«:n<:e to the plaintiil. Alleging that the
RSA No.72')/2007
'…:
defendant was trying; ‘zio dispossess ll(“T by using force she
approaehtrd the court 3§t.’Cl{ll’l§__{ perrrianeiit. injunction.
3. The defendant ntsisted the suit contending
the plaintiff was a trcss~passc:i’. He asserted th”at_l itjwaislthel V’
defendant who was rcsiciing in the su’it”s’c:hed’ule_vproperty-iandg
as he was transferred to Gadag, taldngotirl’.-due ad\’ar1tageiiQ_f”‘hiVs’._
absence and without any ri;_§h-t._*o_r interest-._(5ver—-. the suit’
property, the dei’end;mt;.–. had V.i-tr’e.s_s~;:’5assed lii’1’ito./the suit
property.
4. On the basVis–.of’—:._l’ic firespeiotiveiitzontrenfions, the trial court
framed rziecessan/V..iss:ies,ir1.r:ltiding the issue as regards the
alleged relationshipoi’i:la1″rdic’grtl.and tenant between the plaintiff
and the.defend’ani. e.mi;’i aiootit the lawful possession of the suit
li’proper.t’.j}- by the §:)i€\’i.’];.iVi.’£’f.’f-.’V The plaintiff examined herself and
ltwo”;:.>’itiirz_s’ses; f[‘_lic_: (l(“ii(?1’}d€}11l. also exmiiined himself as DW«l
and one 1″1’1QF€ii”‘\«*t:*i{1”:t*SSt
on VvEif(_l3}’)I”(‘3Cl&i?.’l(.)l”l of the oral and documentary evidence,
thevetriiéitl Court r”ec’:c)r’dr*c.i a fiizding that the plaintiff failed to
-flelstaiblésh the relat.io1’2.sl’ii_p of landlord and tenant. It also found
RSA No.72′?/2007
that no material was }’)I’0dLi(IC?{l to Show that any rents were
paid. It recorded at specific finding that the plaintiff was a
tresswpasser and was not in lawfui possession of theflsult
premises and hence was not entitled for a decree ‘
injunction. The appellate court upon re-appreclialtionV..olf V’
evidence on record has concurred wit%’1’Ath’e« fin’din_gs_lof_thetrial’;
court and has acc()1′{li1’c1;.;ly dismissed thsj alppzeal. *
6. Learned couns:-ti for me “a,o’pell;1nt the
findings recorded by §.,>oL§rl° the g:oii1″ts:’*l§e’lo.w holding’llthat the
plaintiff was a tress–;o2.-zsserlandd ;sl’1(;Al to establish the
relationship of la.;'”z.:llo:gl tcn;an4tA”i.s’_–zmsustalnable from the
evidence on record.” la?so~clo”;’1tends that even assuming that
the plaintlffl”vvasvv a _%1l’é;:’SS~.f5’g:1E’sS’%t31″ sinee she was in settled
__possessf.lon’of the }.}iT(fE1ilS€j’S, slur was untitled for protection of
Akhet’possesséonétas she muld only be dispossessed by following
the pfooe~vS_s V1″-Qm;
_7. Ravi-rig’reareftlllj.’ considered the contentions of the
counsel for the appellant and in the Eight of the
concurrent findings 1″(“(“,0I’dC’Cl lvjv” both the courts below, I find
RSA No.729/2007
that no substantia} question of law arises for consideration in
this second appez-1}. The findings recorded regarding the-
absence of any relationship of Eandiord and tenant is based on
appreciation of eVic:1e::insh_ip«¢ of; 1ain’d1_c>rVd”‘and’1
tenant between the pié..£i1’i[iff and the’det’eVndaint_g A’i”hi’~s
cannot embark upon rtvapprce.iatioh»of evid.enee exercise of
powers u / s 100 CPC3.
8. As regards the m.her…c::omen_tio;a ‘t’t1rged,1~s’umng that the
plaintiff who. i”:’:::;;.Saettiedipo’sse.s:sion though as a tress–
passer, itlhasito heifheld, th-.at”‘–even here also both the courts
have found tihsatiias the €i.5:tent_ia:11′, was irarzsferred to Gadag and
__Was istayingi’ia–!…’l-iospet taking undtle advantage of the
i’~.abise1a,c_e Vthe:’defen{::iz.mt, the plaintiff had tress–passed into
theshed conj’s.:ru~:§t’:irc.t m”: the suit schedule property. Therefore,
in thei”‘wa1;:eo!'”such l’indi1’1gs, is is not open for the plaintiff to
“‘*.i’eonteri_d that she was in settled poswssion of the premises.
fherefoiie, in the Eight of them: factuni findings by both the
RS/\ No.729/2667
COL1I’tS, the second 2.«1ppc*e:1§ cannm be <.-~1'1Lertain<:rd. Hence, the
same is dismissed. S/an
Jm/–
IUDGEf?f 7*