{N THE HTGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THTS THE 01" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYR'}§§REI§;'5'Y --
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO--.- .2225EOEEETR2;{roéO E E
BETWEEN:
Thippanna
S/O Sheeiavanthara
Basappa,
Since dead by his LRS
1. Manjamn:1a.::' A V " -
W/O
A V E
2. sakm _
W/O VSi_.cjEdapp'a.,_
_____
' S/Ov'Late._Thippanna, 26 years,
A s/o_ §;ai;.cA'1"hippanna, 24 years,
_-- ' u,A11 are" R'/£1; Goliarahatty viiiage,
. _ ' V,Ch<¢m_r1agisri Taluk,
j " Davaiiagere District. ...APPELLANTS
Shri. B. Rudragowda, Advocate)
3
ts.)
AND:
1. Nagarnrna,W/o Rudrappa,
Aged about 55 years,
Agriculturist,
R/0 Goilarahatty Village,
Channagiri Taluk, By P.A.Holde1',
Sri. Rudrappa.S, S/o Siddappa,
Aged about 65 years,
R/o Gollarahatty Village,
ChannagiriTa1uk, Davanagere District'.
2. The Deputy Commissioner'
Davanagere District, Davanagere.
3. The Deputy Director _
Of Land Records, A _
Davanagere'Di_vision," ' . »
Davanagere
4. "The Tanaéiiaarliitr 1: --,
Chanunagiri' T__al't1.I<, V i
Channagiri -- 5.7721 3., ...RESPONDENTS
Girishi Advocate for Respondent No.1, Shri.
l\/Ia,njiu!aii’R._K.arnadol1i, High Court Government Pleader for
pResponde.nf N*o_.2=to 4, Shri. Basavarajappa D.R., Advocate for
General “Polvv.er’o’f’Attorney Hoider of Respondent No.1)
appeal is filed under section E00 of Code of Civil
‘ ..fPro’ce.dure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2007
_ pass.e_d in R.A.NO.6/2006 on the file of the I Additional Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn), Davanagere dismissing the appeal and confirming
-the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005 passed in
§
O.S.No.46/2003 on the file of the Additional Civii Judge_(_._lr.Dn),
Channagiri. T
This appeal coming on for Admission this
delivered the following: —
,1UDGMEu” &
The substantial question of lawhthat wqu.1d ‘~ar1s:e’-~.%forVV
consideration is:–
“Whether ~.__t’he ” -below l “were
justified in not appellant
from entering and
whether could. a1so..heVi’1tjunetion against
the ” l State” ‘Government from
idischar’statutorylfunctions if so warranted
inlllre.is_ipe,ct of the property’?
. ..iSince.ith-i;3.rquestioiiwould have to be answered in the negative, the
isleovrisidered for final disposal.
A facts are as follows:–
The”; plaintiff claims as the owner in possession and
l”iieAi2j.o§llrnent of the suit land in Survey No.5}/3 measuring 4 acres
3
29 guntas of Chikkabennur Village, Taluk Channagiri. Originally,
the total extent of land in Survey No.5}. was 22 acres’ji2;l.’f”gu”ntas
including 1 acre 24 guntas kharab land. It was
four hissas long ago as Survey Nos.5.l/SlSlto’5l/iii. l}’.l S
measured 8 acres 8 guntas_.includlngV.the portion…
Originally, it belonged to one 2 ‘however in
possession and enjoymen4t_”‘:of olfllhlingappa and
Rudrappa, son of Hanunia.nth££ppaV.._llpSA measuring 3
acres 39 No.5l/ l and it
was held__b_yl_o’11e:’ of that land, the land in
Survey :’No.5plfi3l and to the further south of
land in Survey l/i3i,e.the:_lland in Survey No.5 1/4 is situated and
5_ acres ‘Z-iguntas including the kharab portion. This
“in :Surv.e’3’.l::No.5l/3 is situated between the lands of Survey
No.5_ il/2 No.51/4. The suit land as already stated
ll”~.__l”*origir1allvy_belonged to one Kenchappa and it was transferred to
_i7sev–era’l persons under respective sale deeds and finally the
~p~laintiff had purchased the land from one Veerabhadrachar under
is
a registered sale deed dated 24.12.1994. It was the plaintiffs case
that the first defendant was interfering with the suit:
therefore, she was constrained to file the suit. The
was the only contesting defendant
statement. Though the other side had entered appea.;’anL:e, the’y*rlid.,
not choose to file any written state”m.ent._ It was ieoiitended that the
plaintiff was not in actual._iiosse-‘sisionyi”of_theasuit and her
possession is in Survey No.51/3. The
RTC entries. and are without
referencetoq landholders. The land of
the plaintiff land in Survey No.51/1 and the
said land by land of Nadigara Rajanna, West
Rangai3ii[‘5a.,….Nic;1th by land in Survey No.51/1 and South
property. This land was delivered to the
poss.essioVn.ofE-yythe plaintiff through his father and is in possession
enijoyiment of the plaintiff. This material fact has been
..i’s.uppreissed and the basis of the suit is only on the podi number
~a1id therefore, the suit itself is a false claim. The podi number is
Z
given behind the back of the defendant and his brother
Maheshwarappa and the defendant therefore had filed an
application before the Deputy Director of Land.v~~.:Reco_rds,
Davanagere, in order to bring it in accordance with acnial
situation. The plaintiff is also a party-to the said proeeediings andi ‘
the said proceedings are pending. It in to. forieeloseg
those proceedings that the suit isftled and the plai;nti’ffiiiis’ seeking
to forcibly evict the defe;n’dant._«’ii'()ni of those pleadings,
the trial Court had decreedfthe \v’herebVyi.i-~not only was the
defendant res_t13:aineid’ i_f1’r.)r’i~1. egrteringoiiii”the” suit property, it also
prevented the revie1jue’aut’l1ot’ities ‘from carrying out their statutory
functions as«–..the,y vv.ere._als;o” injuncted from entering on the suit
The ilow.er.«appellate Court having affirmed those
finidingsstheiappellant is before this Court.
A 3. , learned counsel for the appellant would point out
the» effect of the judgment and decree is that the plaintiff
if vdesire has been successfully achieved in forestalling the
$
proceedings initiated by the appellant in having the podi number
changed in accordance with the actual land holding of the
and defendant. Therefore, notwithstanding
decree against the defendant, thej’rev”enu_e’,authoritieswfbeing9
restrained by an order of injunctionlisiiillegal :and’vwoiu=ld*~.run.V
counter to the law of the land as tlitegpirevenue’ authorities cannot be
injuncted from dischargia_g””Iheir st.atutory:’duties. if Therefore, to
that extent he would submit_ that the ‘iappeaiiV—- would have to be
allowed.
4,: if the judgment and
decree that has been against the appellant, since the basis
of the: claim. was only with reference to podi numbers and in actual
iieffect holding is otherwise, it would be necessary for
the”reveiiue.authorities to ascertain his possession and carry out
‘V neceissarypcorrections. Hence, the question of law framed has to
ii..fjbie’ian:swered in favour of the appellant. The Courts below were
‘ therefore in serious error in law in issuing the order of injunction
23
against the statutory authorities from carrying out their statutory
duties.
5. To that extent the appeal stands The
judgments and decrees of the Courts below to
that the judgment and decree of the trial Court »the_lloyver
appellate Court will not bind th_e«-..s__tatutoryl
now proceed to carry out their du_t_i:efsi_n’addressingpthevfiapplieation
filed by the appellant that any error be
corrected and parties..re1egated’to .respeetli’ve properties.
Sell-
‘Judge