Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1083 (KAR)

Siddappa v. Panchayat Development Officer

2023-09-11

K.S.HEMALEKHA

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present second appeal by the plaintiff assailing the concurrent findings of the courts below, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from possession of the suit property was dismissed by the courts below. 3. Heard Sri Sanjeevkumar C. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of VPC No.198, injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the suit property and declaration that the resolution dtd. 20/1/2006 by the defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and cancel the said resolution dtd. 20/1/2006. The case of the plaintiff is that he has constructed a house in the portion of suit property shown as AEDF by obtaining permission from the competent authority, the resolution passed by defendant No.1 to evict the plaintiff is illegal. 5. The defendant appeared through his counsel, however, did not chose to file written statement. 6. The trial court based on the pleadings held that; i) The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. ii) The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner in possession of the suit property. iii) The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants have illegally interfered in the possession over the suit property. iv) The plaintiff has failed to prove that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 20/1/2006 as null and void and liable to be set aside and by the judgment and decree dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Aggrieved by which the plaintiff preferred regular first appeal. The first appellate court on re- appreciation of the entire material on record concurred with the judgment and decree of the trial court. 8. The facts reveal that earlier the plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction in respect of the very property and the suit came to be dismissed on 16/4/2012, the counter claim filed by the defendant claiming title over the suit property also came to be dismissed. 8. The facts reveal that earlier the plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction in respect of the very property and the suit came to be dismissed on 16/4/2012, the counter claim filed by the defendant claiming title over the suit property also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for injunction the plaintiff preferred regular appeal before the first appellate court. The said appeal also came to be dismissed holding that the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff and mere suit for injunction is not maintainable and the plaintiff ought to have filed suit for relief of declaration. 9. Later, in the year 2015, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit property shown at AEDF letters. The declaration sought by the plaintiff that he is the owner is on the basis of an entry at Ex.P.1 which according to the plaintiff is that his name has been entered in the revenue records since 30 years and he has put up construction over the suit property. 10. The trial court while appreciating evidence of the plaintiff has held that the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff is contrary to the material on record. The plaintiff contends to be in possession of the suit property on basis of tax paid receipt for having paid the same for the past 30 years and the mention of his name in the revenue records at EX.P.1 without material on record to show the entitlement of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, the trial court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner in lawful possession of the suit property. 11. The other reason for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by the trial court for relief of declaration was suit is barred by limitation as the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff in the year 2006, the present suit was filed in the year 2015 i.e., after the lapse of period of 3 years from the date of right to sue first accrued. The trial court held that in the earlier suit for injunction there was no liberty granted to the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration, when the title of the plaintiff was at the first time denied in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff ought to have filed suit for declaration and injunction having not done so, within 03 years from the date of denial, the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction after the lapse of 3 years was barred by law of limitation. 12. The first appellate court on re-appreciation and reanalyzing of the entire evidence and material on record and being the last fact finding court has concurred with the judgment and decree of the trial court. The manner in which the trial court and the first appellate court considered the entire evidence and material placed before it, this court is of the considered view that same does not call for any interference and there arises no substantial question of law for consideration to be dealt with under Sec. 100 CPC. Hence, this court pass the following ORDER i) The regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. ii) The impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below stand confirmed. iii) No order as to costs.