Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Gadag, in O.S.No.117/2002. The suit was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties, namely land bearing R.S.No.93/1A+1B measuring 14 acres. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession and sought to restrain the defendants from interfering. The trial court decreed the suit, leading to the appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's findings that the plaintiff had proved her possession and title through mutation entries and revenue records, and that the defendants failed to substantiate their claim. The court noted that the parties were referred to by their original ranks for convenience. The judgment was delivered on 12.08.2022 by Justice H.P. Sandesh.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal against decree - Section 96 CPC - Regular First Appeal against judgment and decree in O.S.No.117/2002 - The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decree of declaration and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff - Held that the plaintiff had established possession and title through mutation entries and revenue records, and the defendants failed to prove their claim (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties based on possession and title.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 28.10.2005 in O.S.No.117/2002.
Law Points
- Declaration of title
- permanent injunction
- burden of proof
- possession
- mutation entries
- revenue records
- Section 96 CPC
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (08) 30
R.F.A.No.1979/2005 (DEC. & INJ.)
Shri J.S. Shetty (for appellants), Shri S.P. Kulkarni (for respondent)
Husainsab S/o Jandisab Kadampur and Mohammadasab S/o Jandisab Kadampur
Smt Modinabi @ Fakrubi W/o Muktumsab Dadappanavar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular First Appeal against judgment and decree in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (defendants) sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court which decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in favor of the respondent (plaintiff).
Filing Reason
The appellants challenged the trial court's decree granting declaration of title and permanent injunction to the plaintiff.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Gadag) decreed the suit in O.S.No.117/2002 on 28.10.2005.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties based on possession and title?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the trial court erred in decreeing the suit.
Respondent supported the trial court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff had established possession and title through mutation entries and revenue records, and the defendants failed to prove their claim. The trial court's findings were based on evidence and did not warrant interference.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.117/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Gadag, dated 28.10.2005 and praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree.
The parties are referred in the original rank of the plaintiff and defendants to suit the convenience of the Court.
The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court while seeking relief of declaration is that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and contended that the suit schedule properties consists of land bearing R.S.No.93/1A+1B measuring 14 acres.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.117/2002 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Gadag, seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit on 28.10.2005. The defendants filed R.F.A.No.1979/2005 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging the decree. The appeal was heard on 02.08.2022 and reserved for judgment, with judgment delivered on 12.08.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
