Venkateshappa, Lakshmamma and Venkatamma vs Krishnappa

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The Appellants were the Defendants before the trial court.

The facts briefly stated are as follows:

The Plaintiff-Respondent had filed a suit for injunction on the basis that he was in possession of the suit property by virtue of a Hakku Patra having been granted in his favour. It was the case of the Appellant before the trial court that even during the pendency of the suit, the Hakku Patra granted in favour of the Respondent was cancelled, on account of the Respondent having concealed the fact that he was owning more than one site, and therefore he was not entitled and eligible to be granted the suit property and it is on that basis the suit was resisted. It was further contended that the suit property, in. turn, had been granted to the Appellant himself.

The trial court held against the Appellant and the suit was decreed in favour of the Respondent. The same having been affirmed by the lower appellate court, the present appeal is filed.

The Appellant seeks to raise the following substantial questions of law:

(a) whether the courts below have jurisdiction to decide a question where the question has not been raised by the Plaintiff?

(b) whether courts below are right in adjudicating the question whether the executive officer has the authority or not to cancel the issuance of Kakku Pathra without the order of cancellation being challenged?

(c) Whether the courts below have jurisdiction to declare a document which has been cancelled by the authorities as it is in existence?

(d) Whether the courts below are correct in granting injunction in favour of a person whose title has been cancelled?

The learned Counsel for the Appellants while elaborating would contend that the courts below have proceeded to hold that the cancellation of the Hakku Pathra in favour of the Respondent was not valid as the authority who has cancelled the Hakku Pathra was not competent to do so. Further since there was material on record to show that the Respondent was duly dispossessed from the suit property and that the Appellant was granted possession, the question of possession also ought to have been held against the Respondent, whereas the courts below have unfairly held that the Respondent continued to be in possession and was entitled for an order of temporary injunction.

Since these are findings of fact on the basis of which the courts below have proceeded, even if there is an erroneous finding, there is little scope for considering the questions raised, since they do not constitute substantial questions of law which require to be addressed by this Court. In that, the Appellants'' remedy would be to file a suit for declaration and seek recovery of possession. Notwithstanding the findings of the courts below in the suit filed by the Respondent for cancellation of Hakku Pathra was not faulted, the question cannot be held to have attained finality. In. that, the Appellant is entitled to seek enforcement of his title, namely, the Hakku Pathra under which he is said to have been granted the suit property in question.

Accordingly, while leaving open the remedy of the Appellants to seek appropriate relief, the appeal is rejected as it does not give rise to any substantial question of law.