Case Note & Summary
The appellant, D.M. Krishna, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2016 passed by the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No.4752/1993, which dismissed his suit for mandatory injunction. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit, and the respondent was the defendant. The plaintiff's case was that on 20.05.1976, a partnership was formed between the plaintiff and the defendant, which was dissolved in 1977 due to differences. The plaintiff alleged that his mother, Smt. Ramakka, had a golden Kaasinasara (a gold necklace) which was handed over in trust to the defendant. The defendant was also the owner of a site described in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff claimed that a panchayat was convened to resolve disputes regarding the partnership and the necklace, and the panchayatdars directed the defendant to return the necklace and execute a sale deed for the site in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant allegedly failed to comply, leading to the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the entrustment of the necklace and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court, on appeal, framed the issues of whether the plaintiff proved the entrustment and whether the suit was maintainable. The court analyzed the evidence, including the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses, and found that the plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence such as a receipt or agreement regarding the entrustment. The panchayatdars were not examined, and the plaintiff's witnesses were not credible. The court also noted that the suit was filed in 1993, while the alleged entrustment occurred in 1977, making it barred by limitation under Article 58 or 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof and that the trial court's judgment was correct. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Suit for Mandatory Injunction - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove the entrustment of property to the defendant. In the absence of credible evidence, the suit fails. (Paras 10-15) B) Limitation - Suit for Recovery of Property - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 or 113 - The suit filed in 1993 for an alleged entrustment in 1977 is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 1977. (Paras 16-18) C) Evidence - Entrustment - Golden Kaasinasara - The plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence or reliable oral testimony to prove that the golden necklace was handed over to the defendant. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proved the entrustment of the golden Kaasinasara to the defendant and whether the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable and within limitation.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 18.07.2016 passed in O.S. No.4752/1993 by the XXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Entrustment
- Limitation
- Mandatory injunction
- Suit for recovery of property
