Case Note & Summary
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating, demolishing, or dispossessing them from the suit schedule property. They claimed to have been in possession for over 70 years, paying tax to BBMP, and that the property originally belonged to Smt. Andalammal and her brother Sri A.P. Kodandapani. The defendants, claiming through a sale deed dated 18.10.1954 executed by their father Kodandapani, contended that the plaintiffs were trespassers and sought possession by way of counterclaim along with damages. The trial court framed issues regarding lawful possession, interference, entitlement to possession, damages, and maintainability of the counterclaim without a declaration. After considering evidence, the trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove lawful possession and interference, and that the defendants were entitled to possession and an enquiry for mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. The counterclaim was held maintainable without a separate declaration. The plaintiffs appealed under Section 96 CPC, arguing that the suit property was joint family property, the counterclaim was not maintainable without a declaration, and they had settled possession. The appeal was heard by the High Court. The judgment text provided does not include the High Court's final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs proved lawful possession and interference; whether the counterclaim for possession without seeking declaration was maintainable; whether the defendants are entitled to possession
Law Points
- In a suit for permanent injunction
- if defendants make counterclaim for possession
- it is maintainable without seeking declaration of title if they have title based on registered sale deed
- mere long possession does not confer title
- trespassers cannot claim injunction against true owner
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (01) 12
Smt. L. Manjula for appellants, Sri M.S. Bhagawat for respondents 1 to 5, respondents 6 to 12 unrepresented
P. Krishna Veni, Smt. Chandra Devi, V.R. Manonarayan
Sampath Raj, Ashok Raj, Srijay Raj, Smt. Chandrakanti, Suryakanthi, V. Srinivasan, Gajendran V.S., V.S. Gopinath, V.R. Chandrashekar, V.R. Sarasavani, V.R. Shamala, V.R. Devendran
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for permanent injunction restraining alienation, demolition, and dispossession, with counterclaim for possession and damages
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction; defendants sought recovery of possession and damages
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs alleged defendants were attempting to illegally demolish and dispossess them from property where they had lived for 70 years
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit, allowed counterclaim for possession, directed enquiry for mesne profits
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs prove their lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of the suit?
Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants?
Whether the defendants 1 to 5 are entitle for a decree of possession from the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property?
Whether the defendants are entitle for damages of Rs.1000/- per day from the date of counter claim against plaintiffs?
Whether the counter-claim for possession without seeking declaration is not maintainable?
Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the relief sought for?
Whether the defendants are entitle for the reliefs sought for?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs claimed they were in lawful possession for 70 years, paying tax to BBMP, and that the property was joint family property originally owned by their grand-mother Andalammal along with her brother A.P. Kodandapani. They argued that a settlement in 1934 left the suit property with the grand-mother, and they succeeded to it.
Defendants denied plaintiffs' title and possession, stating their father A.P. Kodandapani purchased the property under a registered sale deed in 1954. They contended plaintiffs were trespassers who gained possession by force, and sought recovery of possession with damages.
Judgment Excerpts
The suit schedule property was owned by Smt. Andalammal and Sri A.P. Kodandapani, who were brother and sister.
The defendants are the lawful owners of the suit schedule property. Hence, they made counter claim that they are entitled for recovery of possession from the plaintiffs.
The Court below...did not accept the case of the plaintiffs and answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as ‘negative’ and issue No.3 as ‘affirmative’ holding that the defendants are entitled for a decree of possession...
The counter claim...has been answered as affirmative in terms of issue No.5 in coming to the conclusion that without seeking declaration, the defendants are entitled for possession.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.16572/2005 before XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru seeking permanent injunction. Defendants filed written statement with counterclaim for possession and damages. Trial court framed issues, recorded evidence of PW1 and DW1, and marked Exs.P1-P28 and Exs.D1-D6. On 13.07.2012, the trial court dismissed the suit and allowed the counterclaim, directing enquiry for mesne profits. Plaintiffs filed RFA.No.1757/2012 under Section 96 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 06.01.2020, and pronounced on 27.01.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order XX Rule 12
