Case Note & Summary
The judgment disposes of two regular first appeals arising from a property dispute concerning two agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.106 and Sy.No.107 of Srigandada Kavalu Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The dispute involved rival claims of title, possession, and adverse possession. The respondents, Manju and others, claimed that they were placed in possession of land in Sy.No.106 though the registered sale deed in their predecessor’s name pertained to Sy.No.107, and they asserted having perfected title over Sy.No.106 by adverse possession for over 20 years. They further challenged the General Power of Attorney executed by the appellant Siddaramaiah in favour of Abdul Kareem Sab on 29.02.1988 in respect of Sy.No.107, seeking a declaration that it was null and void and that subsequent transactions based on it were illegal. The appellant, Siddaramaiah, claimed absolute ownership over Sy.No.106 based on a registered sale deed in favour of his grandfather and contended he was in lawful possession. He filed a separate suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession. The trial court framed issues covering the validity of the GPA, title by adverse possession, and the plaintiff’s possession in each case. After recording evidence, the trial court partly decreed the suit filed by the respondents and dismissed the appellant’s suit. Aggrieved, the appellant filed two regular first appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court heard the appeals together. The available extract of the judgment sets out the factual matrix, the pleadings, and the issues framed by the trial court, but does not include the High Court’s analysis, findings on the issues, or the final operative order. Consequently, the High Court’s decision and ratio decidendi are not mentioned in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in partly decreeing the suit in O.S.No.7803/95 and dismissing the suit in O.S.No.4966/94; whether the plaintiffs had perfected title by adverse possession over Sy.No.106; whether the General Power of Attorney dated 29.02.1988 and subsequent transactions were null and void; and whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.4966/94 proved lawful possession and entitlement to permanent injunction.
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (11) 5
R.F.A.No.107/2006 c/w R.F.A.No.108/2006
K.B. Mounesh Kumar (for appellant), C.R. Gopalaswamy (for respondents 1-3)
Manju, Hanumegowda, Thimmegowda, and Abdul Kareem Sab
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suits for permanent injunction, declaration of title by adverse possession, and declaration that a General Power of Attorney and subsequent transactions are null and void, involving two adjacent agricultural lands.
Remedy Sought
In O.S.No.7803/95, plaintiffs sought declaration that defendant No.1 lacked right to execute GPA, that they had perfected title over Sy.No.106 by adverse possession, and permanent injunction; in O.S.No.4966/94, plaintiff sought permanent injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with his possession over Sy.No.106.
Filing Reason
Dispute arose from conflicting claims over possession and title of two survey numbers, with allegations of mismatched possession despite registered sale deeds, and the execution of a General Power of Attorney by one party over the other land while the other party claimed adverse possession.
Previous Decisions
The trial court by common judgment dated 22.10.2005 partly decreed O.S.No.7803/95 and dismissed O.S.No.4966/94. The appeals were filed against that judgment.
Issues
Whether defendant No.1 had no right, title or interest or competency to execute a General Power of Attorney and an affidavit and sale agreement?
Whether plaintiffs perfected title by adverse possession in Sy.No.106?
Whether the transaction dated 29.02.1988 between defendants 1 and 2 with the GPA is null and void?
Whether all subsequent transactions made by defendant No.2 in Sy.No.107 are null, void and illegal?
Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.4966/94 proved lawful possession and interference?
Whether the Mahazar dated 16.12.2000 drawn before Panchayatdars by the Assistant Commissioner is binding on the civil court?
Judgment Excerpts
O.S.No.7803/95 filed by Manju and others against Siddaramaiah and one Abdul Kareem Sab for permanent injunction and declaration that said Siddaramaiah has no manner of right or interest to execute General Power of Attorney... and also to declare that said Manju and others the plaintiffs have perfected their title over the land in Sy.No.106 through the principles of adverse possession...
The learned trial Judge framed following issues in each of the case as under:
It is claimed either the first defendant Siddaramaiah or the name of his father Munichikkaiah was not shown in RTC extract pertaining to Sy.No.106 from the year 1989.
Procedural History
O.S.No.4966/94 instituted on 25.08.1994 by Siddaramaiah. O.S.No.7803/95 filed on 21.11.1995 by Manju and others. Issues framed in O.S.No.4966/94 on 07.04.1997, in O.S.No.7803/95 on 27.07.2003, and additional issues on 07.03.2005. Evidence recorded in 2005. Common judgment delivered on 22.10.2005 partly decreeing O.S.No.7803/95 and dismissing O.S.No.4966/94. Regular first appeals filed in 2006. Appeals were heard and judgment reserved, pronounced on 24.11.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
