Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 192 (KAR)

T. K. Mustafa v. Town Panchayath

2016-02-23

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2016
ORDER : S. Abdulnazeer, J. Though this matter is listed for orders, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this order. 2. The first respondent had issued an endorsement dated 16.03.2015, directing the petitioner to submit title deeds in respect of property bearing No. T-5(6) in Sy.No. 194/3, Ward No. 6, Somwarpet Town, Madikeri. The said endorsement was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 13920/2015. In the said case, this Court passed an order as under:- "The Petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 16.3.2015 issued by the Town Panchayat, Somwarpet, whereby the Chief Officer has directed the petitioner to submit the title deed for the property since the petitioner seeks to repair his property. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent given an undertaking before this Court that, in case an application is made seeking for permission to carry out the repairs of the property in question, the permission will be granted by the respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application. 3. Since the said undertaking has been given by the learned counsel for the respondent, no further directions need to be issued. But, it is hereby clarified that merely because the petitioner is granted the permission to repair the property in question, such a permission would not bestow any title upon the petitioner vis-a-vis the property in dispute. Writ petition stands disposed of." 3. In pursuance of the said order, the first respondent granted permission to the petitioner for repair of the shop in question as per the order at Annexure-K, dated 01.08.2015 subject to certain terms and conditions contained therein. When the petitioner started repairing the shop, the second respondent filed objections before the first respondent opposing grant of permission, on the basis of which, the first respondent has withdrawn the permission granted earlier as per the notice at Annexure-A dated 13.8.2015. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said notice in this writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the second respondent and his family members had filed a suit-O.S. No. 25/1996 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Madikeri, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner was defendant No. 7 in the said suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court framed several issues. 4. Admittedly, the second respondent and his family members had filed a suit-O.S. No. 25/1996 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Madikeri, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner was defendant No. 7 in the said suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court framed several issues. Issue No.2 is relevant for the purpose of this case, which is as under: "Does the plaintiffs prove that the defendant Nos. 2 to 12 are tenants in respect of the premises in their occupation?" 5. The trial Court answered this issue in the negative and against the plaintiffs therein. It is clear that the second respondent and his family members have failed to prove that the petitioner herein was the tenant under them in respect of the aforesaid property. The suit was dismissed on 15.07.2014 (Annexure-C). 6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal - R.A. No. 3/2004 before the Fast Track Court, Kodagu at Madikeri. The appeal was dismissed by the judgment and decree at Annexure-D dated 16.12.2011. It is an admitted position that the second appeal filed against this decree by the plaintiffs has been withdrawn. Thus, the decree of the civil Court in O.S. No. 25/1996 dated 15.7.2004, holding that the petitioner is not a tenant under the second respondent has attained finality. 7. It is also necessary to state here that the petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 52/2012 before the Prl. Civil Judge JMFC, Somwarpet, for injunction against the second respondent and other plaintiffs. After contest, the suit was decreed on 30.11.2015 and the defendants therein were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property in question by the petitioner. This decree has become final. In the circumstances, the second respondent is not justified in claiming title to the property. He was already restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the said shop. Therefore, the first respondent is not justified in stopping the petitioner from repairing the shop in question. 8. In the result, writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The notice at Annexure-H dated 13.08.2015, issued by the first respondent is hereby quashed. 9. It is hereby clarified that this order will not bestow any title upon the petitioner in respect of the property in question. 10. In view of the order as above, it is unnecessary to pass order on IA. 1/15. The notice at Annexure-H dated 13.08.2015, issued by the first respondent is hereby quashed. 9. It is hereby clarified that this order will not bestow any title upon the petitioner in respect of the property in question. 10. In view of the order as above, it is unnecessary to pass order on IA. 1/15. It is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Petition allowed.