Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 352 (KAR)

SATISH v. MALAGOUDA RAMU

2021-03-02

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2021
JUDGMENT : N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 4/8/2011 passed by the FTC-I, Chikodi, in R.A.No. 76/2008 wherein the appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree dtd. 16/4/2008 passed by the Addl. Civi Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chikodi, in O.S.NO. 126/2003 was set aside. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. 2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are addressed in accordance with their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 3. It was contended in the plaint that plaintiff No. 2 Baburao is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff No. 1 is his son and cultivating the lands. The father of the plaintiff No. 2, Balagouda died in the year 1974 leaving behind his son i.e., plaintiff No. 2. The mutation was effected in favour of plaintiff No. 2. Thereafter the plaintiffs were cultivating the suit schedule properties by paying the land revenue to the concerned authorities. The plaintiffs are growing sugarcane, groundnut and other crops and supply sugarcane to the factory. The defendant No. 1 Malagouda is no way concerned to the suit land. The defendant No. 1 in collusion with the defendants No. 2 to 4, submitted a false varadi and got entered their name as per in M.E.No. 13052 of Boragaon village and it was challenged by the plaintiff No. 2 in RTS/AP No. 226/1996-97 and the said appeal was allowed on 20/11/2000 by canceling the previous mutation entry. The defendant No. 1 preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner in RB/RTA/16/00-01 and the said revision was dismissed on 20/3/2002 and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi. Accordingly, the name of defendant No. 1 was deleted on 4/7/2002. The defendants having no right, title and interest over the suit lands, are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction. 4. Defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 contended that plaintiffs have filed a false suit but admitted the proceeding before the revenue Court. The defendants denied the possession of the suit land and the alleged obstruction or interference. It was contended that one Ramu was the owner of the suit land and he died leaving behind two sons namely Balagouda and Rahu @ Rama. Balagouda died leaving behind his son i.e., plaintiff No. 2. The defendants denied the possession of the suit land and the alleged obstruction or interference. It was contended that one Ramu was the owner of the suit land and he died leaving behind two sons namely Balagouda and Rahu @ Rama. Balagouda died leaving behind his son i.e., plaintiff No. 2. Rahu @ Rama died leaving his son, Malagouda, who is the defendant No. 1. The suit lands are joint family properties of defendant No. 1 and he is in joint possession of the same along with plaintiff No. 1. It is stated that a suit for partition is also filed in O.S.No. 92/2003. 5. Learned Trial Judge was accommodated with the following oral and documentary evidence: 1. List of witnesses examined by the plaintiffs: P.W.1 Kallappa Baburao Patil P.W.2 Chandrakant Parasu Shirole 2. List of the witnesses examined by the defendants: D.W.1 Malagouda @ Mallu Ramu @ Rau Patil 3. List of the documents marked by the plaintiffs: Ex.P.1 General Power of Attorney Exs.P2 to 5 R of R Exs.P.6 to 8 M.E. Extracts Exs.P.9 and 10 Land Revenue Receipts Ex.P.11 Certified Order copy of RTS/AP No. 226/96-97 Ex.P.12 Certified Order copy of RB.RTA.168/00-01 EXs.P13 to 21 Sugarcane Weigh slips Exs.P.13(a) to 21(a) Kannada translations of Exs.P.13 to 24 Exs.P.22 to 24 Sugarcane Bills Exs.P.22 (a) to 24(a) Kannada translations of Exs.P22 to 24 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants? 3. What Order or Decree? and decreed the suit with costs and granted an order of permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No. 1 preferred R.A.No. 76/2008, which came to be allowed and the suit was dismissed. Thus, this regular second appeal is filed under Sec. 100 of CPC. 7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellate Court did not understand the scope of the suit and allowed the appeal. The Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. The plaintiffs are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the defendants concocted the records and documents only to make a false claim. Hence, he prayed to allow this second appeal. 8. The Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. The plaintiffs are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the defendants concocted the records and documents only to make a false claim. Hence, he prayed to allow this second appeal. 8. Basically on perusal of the matter, there is also an assertion which is denied regarding the existence of the joint family properties and related suit is pending before the Fast Track Court, Chikkodi. The suit for partition is a comprehensive one wherein the parties can agitate their right independently. The scope of partition and adjudication of controversies are more in a comprehensive suit wherein each of the parties can present his case in detail as to whether possession of joint possession, title or co-ownership as the case may be. More particularly, from the facts of the case and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.NO. 126/2003 subsequent dismissal of suit in R.A.No. 76/2008, I find no substantial question of law is/are involved in entertaining this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. 9. However, the rights to agitate in O.S. NO. 92/2003 are kept open.