Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1340 (KAR)

H. S. Puttaswamy Gowda v. H. S. Vasudeva

2023-11-24

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

body2023
JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant, who has questioned the concurrent findings of both the Courts, wherein plaintiff's suit for injunction simpliciter in respect of Sy. No.574/3 measuring 38 guntas is decreed and defendant herein is restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit land. These concurrent judgements are challenged by the defendant. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under; The plaintiff has instituted the present suit in O.S.No.474/2012 alleging that 38 guntas in Sy. No.574/3 was allotted to him in the family partition and that post partition, he has become absolute owner and is in exclusive possession of 38 guntas in Sy. No.574/3. The plaintiff has also contended that mutation was effected and oral partition in the family is acted upon and lands allotted to his share are indicated in the mutation records in his favour. Alleging that the defendant is interfering with his peaceful possession, the present suit is filed. 4. The defendant on receipt of summons tendered appearance and filed written statement. Initially, the defendant denied oral partition. Later, however, he admitted oral partition and contended that in the family partition, the plaintiff is not allotted the present suit land. On the contrary, the defendant claimed that suit land bearing Sy. No.574/3 is allotted to his share indicating the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff for partition is dismissed and the defendant has sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The plaintiff and defendant to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence. 6. The defendant to counter the plaintiff's case has let in rebuttal evidence and reliance is placed on Ex.D.10 and Exs.D.14 to 23, which are survey sketch and RTC extracts. The Trial Court referring to Ex.P.2, which is the mutation effected pursuant to the oral partition, held that the plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating that suit land was allotted to his share in a family partition. The Trial Court has also taken cognizance of the stand taken by the defendant in an earlier suit filed by him in O.S.No.2/2009. The Trial Court referring to Ex.P.2, which is the mutation effected pursuant to the oral partition, held that the plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating that suit land was allotted to his share in a family partition. The Trial Court has also taken cognizance of the stand taken by the defendant in an earlier suit filed by him in O.S.No.2/2009. In the said suit, the present defendant, who was plaintiff, has disputed the mutation vide Ex.P.2, which is produced and marked on behalf of plaintiff as Ex.D.3. While examining rebuttal evidence let in by the defendant, the Trial Court was of the view that Ex.D.10 and Exs.D.14 to 23 are all prepared pending consideration of the suit and therefore, the Trial Court held that these documents are not relevant and cannot be looked into to adjudicate the plaintiff's possessory rights over the suit land. The suit is decreed by recording a categorical finding that the plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating that he is in lawful possession and there is an interference at the hands of the defendant. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court being a final fact finding authority has independently re-assessed the entire materials on record and has concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. These concurrent judgments are under challenge. 8. Heard learned counsel for the defendant and perused the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts. 9. It is the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiff was not allotted any share in Sy. No.574/3. The said contention cannot be acceded to in the light of the findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation, more particularly, the suit filed by the defendant seeking partition in O.S.No.2/2009. The said suit for partition filed by the defendant was dismissed by recording a categorical finding that there is already severance in the family. The defendant preferred an appeal in R.A.No.666/2011. The Appellate Court at para No.18, while accepting the plea of oral partition set up by the plaintiff in the said suit, has made observations at para No.18. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the said observations, which would have a direct bearing on the controversy involved between the parties. Para No.18 referred in R.A.No.666/2011 reads as under; "18. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the said observations, which would have a direct bearing on the controversy involved between the parties. Para No.18 referred in R.A.No.666/2011 reads as under; "18. The plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 4. Subsequently, P.Ws.2 and 3 did not offer themselves for cross-examination and at the request of plaintiff, their evidence was discarded. During cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that khatha has been entered in the name of the plaintiff, with regard to 28 guntas in Sy. No.574/1 and 9 guntas in Sy. No.576/4. He also admits that in Sy. No.581/2 measuring 3 acres land was partitioned into 3 portions and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in possession of those 3 shares. He also admitted that in Sy. No.574/3, measuring 4 acres 8 guntas divided into 3 portions and he is in occupation and cultivation of 1 acre 13 guntas. He admits that the LRs of defendant No.2 have sold the properties to defendant No.9 and similarly, defendant No.11 has also purchased from L.Rs of defendant No.2. Surprisingly, P.W.1 deposes that he is in exclusive possession of share allotted to him and no one has disturbed to his possession and enjoyment of property." 10. If findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation are examined coupled with Ex.P.2, which is the mutation effected based on an oral partition in the year 1980, then I am of the view that the said observation made by the Appellate Court has attained finality and binds on the defendant. The above culled out para No.18 clearly indicates that Sy. No.574/3 totally measures 4 acres 8 guntas. In the earlier round of litigation, the present defendant, who was plaintiff in O.S.No.2/2009, has admitted that Sy. No.574/3 measuring 4 acres 8 guntas is divided into three portions. He has further admitted in unequivocal terms that he is in occupation and cultivation of 1 acre 13 guntas and he is in possession of the said extent. If the said Sy. No.574/3 measuring 4 acres 8 guntas is divided into three portions, then the said admission coupled with Ex.P.2, which is the mutation extract, clearly establishes the plaintiff's case that he is allotted 38 guntas in Sy. No.574/3. If the said Sy. No.574/3 measuring 4 acres 8 guntas is divided into three portions, then the said admission coupled with Ex.P.2, which is the mutation extract, clearly establishes the plaintiff's case that he is allotted 38 guntas in Sy. No.574/3. If these significant details are taken into consideration, what can be gathered is that the plaintiff is not asserting or laying claim over the portion allotted to defendant in Sy. No.574/3. Plaintiff is asserting that he is allotted 38 guntas in Sy. No.574/3 along with other lands in a family partition and this oral partition is reported to the Revenue Authorities way back in the year 1980. 11. On meticulous examination of the written statement filed by the present defendant, this Court would find that the defendant is disputing allotment of portion in Sy. No.574/3. In the written statement, he has furnished details of the portions of lands distributed in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.574/3, which totally measures 4 acres 8 guntas. Even in the earlier round of litigation, he admits that the land bearing Sy. No.574/3 is divided into three parts. 12. If all these significant details are looked into, the fact that the defendant is disputing allotment of 38 guntas in Sy. No.574/3 amounts to an interference. The mutation vide Ex.P.2 in the present case was accepted by the Court in the earlier round of litigation and the same was marked as Ex.D.3 in O.S.No.2/2009. The Courts in the earlier round of litigation have taken cognizance of these documents. Both Courts referring to the evidence let in by the plaintiff were justified in answering issue No.1 in the Affirmative. Both Courts were justified in holding that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his lawful possession on the date of filing of the suit. 13. The significance of these findings/legal tenet will not only impact upon the litigants involved in the antecedent litigation but extends its authoritative reach to encompass their successors-in-interest. The solemnity and gravity of a Court's pronouncement imbue it with a character of irrefutable evidentiary value, rendering it binding upon the parties and their progeny in subsequent legal contests. The Courts, as custodians of justice, are entrusted with the duty to safeguard the sanctity of prior adjudications, fostering a legal landscape characterized by coherence and consistency. The solemnity and gravity of a Court's pronouncement imbue it with a character of irrefutable evidentiary value, rendering it binding upon the parties and their progeny in subsequent legal contests. The Courts, as custodians of justice, are entrusted with the duty to safeguard the sanctity of prior adjudications, fostering a legal landscape characterized by coherence and consistency. This obligation serves not merely as a legal formality but as an indispensable mechanism to fortify the edifice of justice, wherein the echoes of past pronouncements resonate with authoritative import, guiding the trajectory of legal deliberations. 14. The fact that the defendant even in the present suit is disputing the properties allotted to the plaintiff in a family partition clearly establishes the highhandedness of the defendant and interference as alleged by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed.