SMT. NARASAMMA
W] O MUNINARAYANA
40 YEARS
D10 VENKATASWAMAPPA
R/A NADAGOWDANA
GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 562 149.
SUBBAIAH P A
S/O APPUCHA
38 YEARS _ -
RIAT LINGARAJAPURAVM " ¢ V
BANGALGRE CI'?Y.T5_¢§G. 069
{BY SR1. K.V.MANJUNA'i'I§, :AD\F'I?Qf'é.'Rv~?i(:i)".to R-4(a)
SR1. A. BALAKR1_s;;-man, Acrv F.ORj_R:_1_)_f'
IN R.s.A.ri5.
1
M
S] 0% SR1--;A,s'HAi.4AN_NA _'
'AGED 'ABOUT 45' 'SEARS
Rm; CHKKKAAGUBBI' 'VILLAGE
BIDARr1.HALLI*.HOBLI
' ~ BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 562 149.
ms; .nAN15Ai{UMAR
..Sj.G«AL'vSHAMANNA
- YEARS
RfA~.._ GUBBI VILLAGE
BI.Dޤ?AHALLi HOBLI
BAFIGALORE soum TALUK 552 149.
:19
'33; MUMYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S] O ERAYELLAPPA
R I AT. NADAGOWDANA GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 562 149.
SR! RAJANNA S] O ERAYELLAPI"-'A
AGED ABGUT ~45 YEARS
R ~ 4, A i¥v*- R.s;g;_,NQ, é
1;. %' * .Rj:s:;s.4'%'1cA§iDAKUMAR
2 SR1 MUNIYAPPA
6 Sm. THIMMAKKA
55 YEARS
W/O MUNISWAMAPPA
1:)/o VENKATASWAMAPPA
R/AT MADEKODUGENAHALLI M
BAGALUR POST, JALA Roma' :
DEVANAHALLI TALUK '
BANGALORE RURAL 13Is1'R;:CI'=._S62 119." R ~
7. SMT. NARASAMMA
w/0 MUNINARAYANA
40 YEARS _
9/0 VENKATASWAMAPPA U V
R/A NADAGow1)ANA'=.L "
GOLLAHALLI WLLAGE
BIDARAHALLI M-131.1} . .,
BANGAL'QR'E S£Z_)U'1_'H..'PALU'K_"5tS2V149.
8. SUE3Bfi;jAH"'P~..A» _ "
S/0--vAPP'J_CHA
R/AT Ll.HGAE~2AJ.._ "IJRAIL!
"gBANGALOR'E C;1TY--__56p O69.
(SR1. A. xBA1;aKR1sH':s:A;\1%;'R'ADv FOR C/R-1 AND R-2
sR;.- :<._v. M&P{J'U1'ifATH, ADV FOR R-5(a) to 5(a)
S; ..A'.;= SHAMANNA
42 _YEARS
"R/A. CHIKKA GUBBI VILLAGE
" _R'R:mRAHALL: HOBLI
BANGALORE scum TALUK 552 149.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S] O ERAYELLAPPA
R[AT. NADAGOWDANA GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLE
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 562 149.
YELAHANKA HQBLI
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
SRi VENKATASWAMAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.Rs
SMT. THIMMAKKA
65 YEARS
W1 0 MUNISWAMAPPA .
D/D VENKATASWAMAPPA
R/AT MADEKODUGENAHALL1' - V.
BAGALUI-1' POST, JALA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RU~E§AL I5'i'S*ri§ig,VVV""5_62 1'1<')";
SMT. NARASAMMA; '
W10 MUNINARAYANA
40 YEARS I
D/QHVENELATAA, WAMAPFA. "
R/x;'N'M)As;:qwDANA.V '- ' '
G0L.1,A£11gLL1 v11.,L:~..;CrE'
~atDiARjAHALL.1 'H{}BLI '
BANGALQ_REV%sQu:rfi TALUK 562 149.
~suBBmp.i9I A
S/'O.4AP,PUCH'A_ "
-- . 33 YEARS»
R',iAT Liré-GARAJAPURAM
i.r;2A1mALoRF.'."C1TY 550 059.
{Sm :I{a};?. 4ivL4$15§,JUNA'i'H, ADV FOR R-4(a) to 4(e))
' I2;' R.s%.a.'§ifc.;'.J::13s3;2006
1.
” _ ms. NANDAKUMAR
‘3/0 A. Si-IAMANNA
42 YEARS
R/A. CHIKKA GUBBI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 562 149.
SRI MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S] O ERAYELLAPPA
~ “(Sm AV.’ BALAKRISHNAN, ADV FOR 0/ R-1)
R/AT. NADAGOWDANA GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 562 149.
3 SR] RMANNA s/0 ERAYELLAPPA .
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS _
RESIDING AT NADAGOWDANA GGLLAI_L%__LLI” ‘ .
VILLAGE, B1DARAHALL1Hi;§BLr;%AAT..Ti’ 4′ _ . ~
BANGALORE scum 1fALUr<ss;:_:_149. -. «.
(SR1. A. BALAKRISHNAN, ADv._}«'QR cm.-:)–.,
IN R.s.A.N0.1355I2GQ6':%«–
1. M.S.NANDAKUMAR” V
3/0 A. SHAMANNA
42 YE£iR€~;’i;;_-‘ i ‘V _
R] A..~{::i~:_rI{.§<A Gu;3B:…V11;LAGE.
BID.5.RAH,ALLi– 1-1031.1'
_B%A1~;C;A_L0:~i:E,,saU'IfH 'l"1'%..L11}{ 562 149.
2 ESR-I MUNV§'rAP:?A"A»__ ._ '
AGED ABVoUj'~'.s@.__ YEARS
S10 ERAYELLAPPA.
_ _ RJAT: NAm;G{:wEiANA GDLLAHALLI VILLAGE
_ ‘ BIDARAHALLI 1~3!.oBL1
;BANGALORE—SOUTH TALUK 562 149.
‘ _ “s§?I:,RA::JANNA s/0 ERAYELLAPPA
. “AGE_DV3§B’OUT 45 YEARS
RESIBING AT NADAGOWDANA GOLLAHALLI
VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
.. B.{&NGALORE SOUTH TALUK 562 149.
RESPONBENTS
THESE R.S.As ARE FILED U/S 100 OF CFC
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE
D’!’.0′?.{}4.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NOs.296]2003,
re
O.S.No.114/95 was set aside and ().S.Nos.231/96
and 232 / 96 were decreed.
2. The facts in a nutshell are to the efi’ee’t–eu
the appexlant herein filed the suit
seeking the relief of deciarafion«.
injunction against the defendants of 1
4 guntas of land in sy.kNe{4s/2 of.. % o %
Goilahaili village, Bédayahalfi South
Taluk and the said claim of the
appellant ‘_’he property by
adverse pendeney of the said
SL1it,: 2 therein filed
of 5 acres 28 guntas of
la11.– in the aforesaid 1 acre 4
of they in turn sought permanent
the appellant herein from
their peaceful possession and
enjofymtent of the aforementioned land measuring 5
” »_’ac::I§9:s 23 guntas. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.33G/93
= filed the suit O.S.No.232/96 in resmct of 18
%
‘,1
ll
guntas of land in Sy.No.48/ 1 and the 2nd defendant
filed O.S.No.231/96 in respect of 26 guntas of in
the aforementioned Sy.No.4~8/ 1 and they also
for declarafion and for delivery of possessiofi
3. The appellant herein ‘
piaint averment that the slfit
belonged to one the eppellant
and the defeodapts family, and
the of Sy.No.47, the
and enjoyment of
the ‘overt 30 years and it is also
oonte:a d’e§#A«.de.fengiant and in turn sold the same to 731
eeciefandésxt. both these defendants were aware of
tee a being in possession of the suit
.. ]p1’opeft;ies as his possession was never disturbed at
point of time. It was also contended by the
x “appellant that the 7222 defendant also sold major
portion of Sy.No.48 in favour of the defendants I and
.%
:4
defendants 1 to 3 therein were directed to hand over
the possession of the suit preperty to the
The prayer for mesne profits was rejected.
6. The aggrieved party appealed
appellate court and as
lower appellate entire
material on ‘4 Eextezference was
called in respecpof by the trial
court, court’s refusal
t0 81″ appeliate eourt held
thatdvlthe’ have passed a decree in
the s11itxf1}edvb3dzde£Tei1de.nts 1 and 2 in O.S.No.330/93
= eei1eequefi’e’.3r…t§1e lower appellate court dismissed
fine 296/03 and 297/03, but however,
mm by the defendants 1 and 2
mentiened above R.A.Nos.20/04, 21/04 and 22/04
“id-V allowed by setting aside the judgment and
d “decree of the trial court in 0.S.No.1l4/95 and the
suit was decreed as prayed for and an enquiry into
the mesne profits was also ordered. The Court also
b
‘.1
evidence of defendants witnesses, it was submitted
that even a suggestion was put on behalf”
appellant to the witnesses for the _
the defendants are still ready;
amount as per the ageement Exi}32,
receive the balance sale
deeds in favour ofjilfie of the
eneroaehed to this aspect
of the egiseiice, is when the
appellant of the appellant
possession will not
that it was for the first
tinge” in the ., ‘V1990, when the defendants got
“their land in Sy.No.48/ 1 and found that
eixcrroached 1 acre 4 guntas of land
iI”i””Sy;No’; 1, that the appellant herein started to
V. *ai1ege°’ that his possession is by way of adverse
“‘-naossession and therefore if the period is reckoned
‘ it “from the said year of 1990, the suit filed by the
piaixitiif falls short of 12 years which is the statutory
period required to succeed in taking the plea of
3/,
19
adverse possession. Therefore, referring to all these
aspects of the material on record, it is submitted that
the lower appellate court has properly considere~éij'<:iieA4
entire materiai on record and its V '
termed as either perverse or: "'tz.'1reasons§b1e', V
other submission made by the
respondents is that the ':'ExtP1
said to be a partitj.eIji deed" ieefer afapenate
court has eonsidereé in the light
of the facts, ease and has
found document, in as
mueiiwas, be renumbered as
1', tne year 1990 after survey
_theI'eI'o1_fe vthe iquiestion of Sy.No.48/ 1 and 48/2
'~ _ "existenee" 'at the time of the partition deed
Exu.'P.:1::,'»-..t1eeVs_v:'i.aot arise. This itself is sufficient to
it document Ex.P1 and rightly the lower
AAappei~iate court has not accepted the said document
i~.._?as.evidenci11g partition between the appellant and his
it V» mibrothers. Therefore, referring to all the above
aspects, learned eeunsei for the respondents
it/.7
2:)
submitted that all thesaappeals lack merit and are
liable to be dismissed as no question of law, much
less, substantial question of law is involved:
these appeals.
10. In the light of the aforesaid
fozward by the I have
carefully examined V _ including the
plaint avern_ae:;t. herein in his
suit and; has referred to
‘inmdléspute and these facts
that of the judgment of the
lower as under:
” .>_’.’_:’I’l1e factswhieh are no longer in dispute
_ six appeals are: Sy.No.48 was
1 “iiieastlring 8 acres 28 guntas. It
‘belonged to Narayanappa; who sold it
~ em defendant, who inturn sold it to 7m
x ‘T defendant. 1” defendant purchased 3
acres under the 1’m§ste1°ed sale deed
(Ex.D3) from 7’31 defendant on 21.4.1988
(middle portion). 2nd defendant
purchased 2 acres 28 guntas (top portion)
under the registered sale deed (Ex.D4)
fir
‘I
25
also found on evidence that it was only when the
defendants found that there was eI1cI’oaehInent:’i:!y
the plaintiff into their lands, when they
land in the year 1990, thatthe dheifem ” ‘V
thought of rushing to the of
suit and therefore is
reckoned, it still falls of 12
years to claim title” possession.
The said f1nding__ or is based
on the be termed as a
In aforesaid reasoning, in
my _v_fiew,d eourt has not committed any
e3:f1″or,H’I’xiijeI1 less, can it be said that the
Lihe lower appellate court suffers from
in so far as plea of adverse
AA possession put forward by the appellant is
at’-..v’eon*eemed. The learned Judge of the lower appellate
V. ocourt has considered the said plea from every
conceivable angle and also in the light of the position
..1
26
in law as has been enunciated by the Am); Court and
therefore, I do not find much force in the submission
made by the learned senior counsel for the A’
that the judgment of the lower appeflatte
vitiated for non consideration Vef”‘evédeI’j1Ce, .o’1’§
In fact, in my view, the lower
committed any error in V been ‘V
with regard to the” plea/(if eoseeseion is
concerned. The deciei$c;~IiV 2000 KAR
4134 referred’:toV1’by eounsel for the
my not to the case on
hand,’ *’If_h’is is the appellant himelf
has in%ex}oéLA about the encmenment by
. . ” the defendants.
Foe above said reasons, I do not see any
A subétafiiai questioll of law being involved in anthem
and accordingly these appeals aredisntéssed.
D _ Sd/-