Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 37 (KAR)

Chennamma v. Krishnappa

2015-01-06

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Anand Byrareddy, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The case of the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the trial court, is that the suit schedule property bearing site No. 2, khata No. 2, CMC No. 2/2, measuring east to west 50 feet and north to south 30 feet, situated at Singasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was purchased by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 12.8.2002. It transpires that during the pendency of the suit, khata was also made out in the name of the plaintiff. It was the complaint of the plaintiff that the defendants, who had no claim over the suit property, had sought to interfere as on 18.1.2003 and tried to put up construction, at which stage, the plaintiff had lodged a complaint to the Jurisdictional Police and thereafter filed the suit. The defendants having entered appearance had denied the suit claim and on the other hand, contended that the father of the defendants was cultivating the land in question, namely, Survey No. 2 of Singasandra village, measuring 1 acre 2 guntas in all, which belonged to Karagadevaru temple and he was a protected tenant. With the coming into force of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, the father of the defendants had filed an application before the Land Tribunal, seeking grant of occupancy rights and such occupancy rights were granted in favour of Pillappa in respect of 6 guntas of land in Survey No. 2, by order dated 30.4.1982. On the death of Pillappa, the defendants 1 to 3 are said to have succeeded to the property as the absolute owners. Out of the land granted to Pillappa, certain portion was acquired by the Government for the formation of National Highway - 7 in proceedings bearing No. LAQ/BLR/5/90-91 and after such acquisition, the defendants continued to remain in possession of the remaining portion of the land, which was ultimately partitioned by them under a registered partition deed dated 5.7.2002 and the khata was made out in the name of Pillappa. Therefore, it was contended that the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff was null and void and prayed for dismissal of the suit. On those pleadings, the court below framed the following issues:-- "1. Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession over suit schedule property? 2. Therefore, it was contended that the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff was null and void and prayed for dismissal of the suit. On those pleadings, the court below framed the following issues:-- "1. Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession over suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the unlawful interference by the defendants?" The court below has answered the above issues in the negative. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that notwithstanding that there was grant of occupancy rights in favour of one Pillappa, under whom the defendants are claiming, there were subsequent events, which had been brought on record. However, the court below has pointedly refused to go into the same on the footing that all the documents that were produced as regards the further developments during the pendency of the suit had come into existence subsequent to the filing of the suit and since the suit was one for bare injunction and was not for title and possession, the question of addressing the same would not arise and has restricted the scope of the enquiry to address whether the plaintiff had proved possession or the defendants had done so. The court has come to the conclusion that if the documents as on the date of the suit were perused, the defendants clearly established their right to possession and though it was a vacant land, which was the subject matter of the suit, the court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not have established possession on the basis of the documents produced by him. It is in this background that the court below has dismissed the suit. 4. Given the above facts and circumstances, it was appropriate for the plaintiff to have amended the suit appropriately if there were subsequent developments during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, without seeking such an amendment, the plaintiff having pursued the suit for injunction and the court having restricted consideration of the pleadings with reference to the suit prayer, cannot be faulted. Therefore, without seeking such an amendment, the plaintiff having pursued the suit for injunction and the court having restricted consideration of the pleadings with reference to the suit prayer, cannot be faulted. However, at the same time, in the interest of justice and in order to ensure that there is complete adjudication of the rights of the parties, it is necessary for the court below to have inquired into title and further developments as regards the contentions of the plaintiff that whatever rights conferred on the predecessor of the defendants, stood nullified by virtue of the grant of occupancy rights having been quashed and a regrant having been made in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. This aspect of the matter requires to be reconsidered for there is vehement contention on behalf of the respondent that all the proceedings that are sought to be referred to and relied upon by the appellant, were proceedings in which the defendants were never parties and it would have no binding effect on the right of the defendants. Therefore, there is a controversy that requires to be addressed with reference to those documents. In this light of the matter and as already stated, in order to properly adjudicate the rights of the parties, it is necessary for the plaintiff to have appropriately amended the plaint. Accordingly, the plaintiff is permitted to make an application for amendment which shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation having regard to the circumstances of the case. Therefore, as a matter of form, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree is set aside. The matter is remanded to the court below with liberty to the plaintiff to make an application for amendment of the plaint, which shall be considered on its merits, without reference to the question of limitation and thereafter, the court shall proceed in accordance with law.