Sri Bramhachari vs Sri Venkataramanappa

V. Jagannathan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant finally in respect of the appeal preferred by the plaintiff calling in question the concurrent findings of the courts below following the suit tiled by the plaintiff for permanent injunction being dismissed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court.

The plaintiff sought for permanent injunction in respect of the area measuring 5 acres 29 guntas of land as shown in the suit schedule situated in Sy. No. 49 of Kundalahalli village. The plaintiffs case was that his father was granted the land under the Karnataka Inams Abolition Act and thereafter the father of the plaintiff executed a Will bequeathing the management of Eshwara Devaru temple and later on the plaintiff applied for occupancy rights and the Land Tribunal granted the plaintiff an extent of 2 acres 39 guntas and the elder brother of the plaintiff by name Chinnachari an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas of land. The survey number came to be renumbered 115 later on and it is the case of the plaintiff that following the death of his father Lingachari, the plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the suit property over which the defendant has no right whatsoever. Following the interference by the defendant, suit came to be filed for the aforesaid relief of permanent injunction.

On the other hand, the stand of the defendant was that the defendant was granted 1 acre 37 guntas of land in Sy. No. 147 of Kundalahalli village. The grant made was challenged by one Narayanagowda before the Asst. Commissioner and the said challenge ended in favour of the defendant and even the revision filed by Narayana Gowda was dismissed and thereafter the said Narayana Gowda has prompted the plaintiff to file the suit by giving false boundaries with a view to overcome the decisions of the Asst. Commissioner and Dy. Commissioner. Therefore, the suit was sought to be dismissed.

The trial court framed four issues and after evidence appreciation, negatived the issues 1 to 3 by holding that the plaintiff cannot seek permanent injunction in respect of the land which has been granted to the plaintiffs brother Chinnachari and taking note of the admission made by FW-1 to the effect that the suit property actually measures more than 8 acres 9 guntas, the trial court was of the view that they are the admitted facts and the defendant also claims right over his property on the basis of the grant made to the defendant and the grant made in favour of the defendant also being confirmed by the orders of the Asst. Commissioner and Dy. Commissioner, the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed. The lower appellate court confirmed the same by concurring with the trial court.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and on going through the judgments of the courts below, I find that the plaintiff has lost his case only on the strength of his own admission made and the case that was set up by him in the pleadings when the plaintiff admit that when he is not the owner of more than 2 acres 39 guntas of land as his brother Chinnachari was also granted 2 acres 30 guntas of land and the land granted to the defendant being unsuccessfully challenged before the revenue authorities by one Narayana Gowda, grant of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property therefore was not called for both on facts and in law and accordingly the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appellate court committed no error in concurring with the trial court. I therefore see no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the appeal shall not come in the way of the appellant seeking declaration of his ownership over the land which has been actually granted to him and in the event of appellant taking any such steps, the above observation shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.