High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeals in Property Declaration Suit — Upholds Trial Court Decree Based on Adverse Possession and Valid Title. Concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and title cannot be disturbed in appeal without substantial error.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two Regular First Appeals (RFA No.429/2003 and RFA No.506/2003) filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2003 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna, in O.S.No.43/1996. The suit was filed by Smt. Jayalaxmamma (since deceased, represented by L.Rs.) seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain property. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellant in RFA No.429/2003 is M.G. Papanna, and the appellants in RFA No.506/2003 are Bettegowda and others. The respondents include the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and other parties. The appeals were filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 CPC. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed both appeals, upholding the trial court's decree. The court found no substantial error or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's title and possession. The judgment was delivered by Justice B.S. Patil on 31st October 2013.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Appeal against decree - Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1 CPC - Concurrent findings of fact - The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's decree granting declaration of title and permanent injunction, as the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and not shown to be perverse or erroneous in law. (Paras 1-3)

B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Declaration of title - The suit for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed by the trial court based on the plaintiff's established possession and title, which was upheld by the High Court in appeal. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants have made out a case for interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court regarding declaration of title and permanent injunction.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Both appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 13.1.2003 passed in O.S.No.43/1996 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna, are confirmed.

Law Points

  • Adverse possession
  • Declaration of title
  • Permanent injunction
  • Concurrent findings of fact
  • Section 96 CPC
  • Order 41 Rule 1 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (KAR) (10) 3

R.F.A.No.429/2003 and R.F.A.No.506/2003

2013-10-31

B.S. Patil

Sri S.P. Shankar, Sr. Counsel for Sri H.M. Manjunatha (for appellant in RFA 429/2003); Sri G.S. Bhat & N.K. Kantharaju (for appellants in RFA 506/2003); Sri K.V. Narasimhan (for respondent 1 in both appeals)

M.G. Papanna (in RFA 429/2003); Bettegowda and others (in RFA 506/2003)

Smt. Jayalaxmamma (since deceased, rep. by L.Rs. K. Srinivas) and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction

Remedy Sought

Declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property

Filing Reason

Dispute over title and possession of property

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit in O.S.No.43/1996 on 13.1.2003

Issues

Whether the trial court's decree granting declaration of title and permanent injunction is sustainable in law? Whether the appellants have made out a case for interference with the concurrent findings of fact?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the trial court's findings are erroneous and not based on evidence. Respondents supported the trial court's decree and argued that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi

Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court, based on appreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered with in appeal unless shown to be perverse or contrary to law. The appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial error or illegality in the impugned judgment.

Judgment Excerpts

R.F.A.No.429/2003 FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 13.1.2003 PASSED IN OS NO.43/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. R.F.A.No.506/2003 FILED U/O 41 R 1 R/W SEC. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 13.1.03 PASSED IN O.S.NO.43/96 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

Procedural History

The suit O.S.No.43/1996 was filed before the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna, which was decreed on 13.1.2003. Aggrieved, the defendants filed two appeals: RFA No.429/2003 by M.G. Papanna and RFA No.506/2003 by Bettegowda and others, under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 CPC respectively. The High Court heard both appeals together and dismissed them on 31.10.2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeals in Property Declaration Suit — Upholds Trial Court Decree Based on Adverse Possession and Valid Title. Concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and title cannot be disturbed in appeal without substa...
Related Judgement
High Court CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3301 OF 2018