Case Note & Summary
These two Regular First Appeals arose from a common judgment of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dated 21-06-2014. The dispute centered on a property at Chunchaghatta village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. One suit (O.S.No.133/2007) was filed by J. Manjula for permanent injunction, while the other (O.S.No.4045/2008) was filed by A. Manohar for declaration of title and possession. J. Manjula claimed that her mother, C. Roopavathi, purchased the property from S. Sreenivasulu on 29-09-2003, and then gifted it to her on 06-12-2004. She asserted that she had been in possession, paying taxes, and had built a small house. A. Manohar, on the other hand, claimed ownership through a chain starting from the original owner Muniyappa @ Ruttappa, who executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of A. Saraswathi on 04-04-1986 and received full sale consideration. Subsequently, A. Saraswathi, as GPA holder, executed a sale deed in favour of A. Manohar on 01-04-1998. A. Manohar contended that the later sale deeds executed by Muniyappa’s legal heirs in favour of S. Sreenivasulu (21-03-2003), Sreenivasulu to C. Roopavathi (29-09-2003), and the gift deed to J. Manjula (06-12-2004) were null and void. The trial court clubbed the suits, recorded common evidence, and framed issues. In O.S.133/2007, it held that J. Manjula proved lawful possession and interference, and granted permanent injunction. In O.S.4045/2008, it negatived A. Manohar’s claims, holding that he failed to prove ownership and the subsequent deed was valid. Consequently, the suit for declaration and possession was dismissed. Aggrieved, the defendants in the injunction suit (including A. Manohar and his father) filed RFA 1318/2014, and A. Manohar filed RFA 1317/2014 against the dismissal. The High Court of Karnataka, presided by Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, heard the appeals on 16-10-2019. After hearing counsel and perusing records, the court framed points for consideration, the first of which was 'Whether the appellant herein (plaintiff in O...' but the judgment text ends abruptly without further recording of arguments, analysis, or a final order. Thus, the provided text does not contain the court's decision or ratio decidendi.
Issue of Consideration
Final Decision
Not mentioned. The judgment text ends after framing points for consideration in the High Court appeal, and no final decision is recorded.
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (10) 19
R.F.A. No.1318/2014 c/w R.F.A.No.1317/2014
Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
For Appellants: Sri. S.A.Padmanabha; For Respondent in RFA 1318/2014: Sri. L.Rajanna; Other respondents unrepresented
M.S.Ananthamurthy and A.Manohar (in RFA 1318/2014); A.Manohar (in RFA 1317/2014)
J.Manjula (in RFA 1318/2014); Subbamma, Dodda Vajrappa, Maddurappa, Muniyappa, Chikka Vajrappa, Kumar, S. Sreenivasalu, C.Roopavathi (deceased by LRs), J.Manjula (in RFA 1317/2014)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeals against common judgment in two civil suits: one for permanent injunction and one for declaration of title and possession concerning a property at Chunchaghatta village, Bengaluru.
Remedy Sought
In RFA 1318/2014, the appellants (defendants in injunction suit) sought setting aside of the decree of permanent injunction. In RFA 1317/2014, the appellant (plaintiff in declaration suit) sought setting aside of dismissal and granting of declaration and possession.
Filing Reason
Appellants were aggrieved by the trial court's decisions: partly decreeing the injunction suit against them and dismissing their suit for declaration and possession.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) by common judgment dated 21-06-2014 partly decreed O.S.No.133/2007 (granting permanent injunction to J. Manjula) and dismissed O.S.No.4045/2008 (refusing declaration and possession to A. Manohar).
Issues
Trial Court Issues in O.S.No.133/2007: (1) Whether plaintiff proves lawful possession; (2) Whether plaintiff proves interference; (3) Whether entitled to permanent injunction.
Trial Court Issues in O.S.No.4045/2008: (1) Whether plaintiff proves absolute ownership; (2) Whether defendants 1-6 illegally executed sale deed dated 21.03.2003; (3) Whether that sale deed null and void; (4) Whether sale deed dated 29.09.2003 null and void; (5) Whether gift deed 06.12.2004 void; (6) Entitlement to possession; (7) Reliefs; (8) Whether defendant No.9 proves valid title of defendant No.8 and gift deed; (9) Court fee; (10) Relief.
High Court framed points for consideration but only first point partially stated: '1] Whether the appellant herein (plaintiff in O...'; remaining points not provided in text.
Submissions/Arguments
In O.S.No.133/2007, plaintiff J. Manjula claimed possession through gift from mother C. Roopavathi, who had purchased from S. Sreenivasulu; defendants M.S.Ananthamurthy and A.Manohar claimed A.Manohar as owner via GPA sale from original owner Muniyappa.
In O.S.No.4045/2008, A. Manohar claimed title through Muniyappa and GPA sale deed dated 01.04.1998, challenging subsequent deeds; defendant J. Manjula reaffirmed her valid title and possession.
Judgment Excerpts
Though there appears to be some variation in the measurement on one side of the suit schedule property, however, the parties in both these appeals submit that the suit schedule property in both the suits are one and the same. (Para 3)
the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are:- 1] Whether the appellant herein (plaintiff in O... (Para 14)
Procedural History
O.S.No.133/2007 for permanent injunction filed by J. Manjula. O.S.No.4045/2008 for declaration and possession filed by A. Manohar. Suits clubbed, common evidence recorded. Trial Court passed common judgment on 21-06-2014 partly decreeing OS 133/2007 and dismissing OS 4045/2008. Aggrieved, defendants in OS 133/2007 filed RFA 1318/2014; plaintiff in OS 4045/2008 filed RFA 1317/2014. High Court heard appeals on 16-10-2019 and framed points for consideration, but final judgment not available in provided text.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
