Sharanappa vs G. Nagamma

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The defendant in O.S. No. 110/1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Kudligi has come up in this second appeal impugning the divergent finding rendered by the lower appellate Court in R.A. No. 27/2006 While allowing the said appeal by judgment and decree dated 13.04.2010, the lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2006 in dismissing the suit of the respondent herein in O.S. No. 110/1998 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Kudligi.

The brief facts leading to this second appeal are as under:

The appellant herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 110/1998, which was filed seeking the relief of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the vacant site bearing No. 64/B, III Ward in Gudekote village of Kudligi Taluk in Bellary District. The suit is filed by the respondent herein on the ground that the suit schedule property i.e., plot bearing No. 64/B belongs to her, as it has come to her from her husband''s father (father-in-law) and the same is registered in her name in the revenue records of Gudekote village. It is her specific case that, she has obtained sanction plan and license for construction on the suit land and when she tried to put up construction on the suit land, there was obstruction to her construction by the defendant. Hence, she filed the present suit in O.S. No. 110/1998 for the relief of declaration to the effect that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and also for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with her right to put up construction on the suit schedule property.

In the said suit, defendant entered appearance, filed his statement contending that the suit schedule property bearing No. 64/B is not at all in existence and the property bearing No. 63/A of Gudekote village is tried to be projected as the property bearing No. 64/B and the plaintiff having manipulated to get the sanctioned plan for non-existing property bearing No. 64/B, is trying to put up construction on the property bearing plot No. 63/A. With this rival pleadings, when the matter went for evidence, the plaintiff has adduced evidence through herself and as well as two independent witnesses, one of whom is the owner of the property situated on the southern side of the suit schedule property and another person is the resident of the same village, who have deposed to the effect that suit schedule property was the property of the plaintiff''s father-in-law, who was in possession and enjoyment of the same during his lifetime and thereafter, it has come to the ownership of the plaintiff. In the said proceedings several documents were also produced and marked to demonstrate that the suit property is registered in the name of the plaintiff in revenue records in Gudekote village.

Per contra, defendant adduced evidence by himself as D.W. 1 and also another witness by name Mazeed as D.W. 2 and relied upon two revenue documents and one partition deed. The sum and substance of his evidence is that, suit property is not the property bearing No. 64/B, but it is the property bearing No. 63/A, which according to him, belongs to one Aroodi Siddanna, who is none other than plaintiff''s mother''s elder sister''s husband and to whom the said property is belonging. Though said evidence was adduced by him, he did not lead evidence through the said Aroodi siddanna, who is said to be the owner of plot bearing No. 63/A. It is further seen that, in that evidence there is a clear admission on the part of the defendant that he was never in possession of the suit property at any point of time and he also admits that he never owned any property adjacent to the suit property. In sum and substance, his only grievance is that the property which is claimed by the plaintiff as plot No. 64/B is the plot No. 63/A belonging to his maternal uncle Aroodi Siddanna.

Though such a plea is taken, no evidence is adduced in support of the same, either through independent witness or by producing any document to substantiate the same. However, it is seen that the trial Court being convinced that defendant had no manner of right, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff only on the ground that title deeds were not produced to substantiate her title to the suit property. However, in an appeal which is filed by the plaintiff in R.A. No. 27/2006, the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, having come to the conclusion that the suit property standing in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records and in addition to that, there is a clear admission on the part of the defendant that he has no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property and that he was never in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time and he never owned any property adjacent to the suit property, has rightly assessed the evidence and pleadings to come to the conclusion that, though defendant has taken a defence that suit property is his maternal uncle''s property, he has not produced any acceptable evidence in that behalf and accordingly, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in O.S. No. 110/1998 and consequently, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff in R.A. No. 27/2006.

In this second appeal, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who is defendant in the Court below, this Court find, no grounds are made out by the appellant to interfere with the well reasoned findings given by the lower appellate Court in setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 110/1998, consequently, allowing the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. In that view of the matter, this Court find, no justifiable grounds are made out to admit this second appeal, inasmuch as no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed.