IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1561/2012 (INJ) BETWEEN S.Vishwanatha Shetty, S/o Shesha Shetty, Aged about 48 years, Editor “Thunga Varthe Weekly”, Belihalli Road, Koppa Town, Chikkamagalur – 577 126. …Appellant (By Sri B.N.Badrinath, Advocate) AND 1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. District Health Officer, Malle Gowda Government Hospital, Chikkamagalur, Represented by District Surgeon.
3. M.S.D.M. Hospital, Koppa, Represented by its Administrator & Senior Medical Officer – Government Hospital, J.Neelakanthappa, Koppa, Chikkamagalur District – 577 123. …Respondents (By Sri V. Sreenidhi, AGA for R1 to 3) This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated: 01.03.2012 passed in R.A.No.128/2011 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Chikmagalur, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.02.2010 passed in OS No.60/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, N.R.Pura.
This Regular Second Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2012 passed in R.A. No.128/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Chikmagalur, wherein the appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, N.R, Pura, in O.S. No.60/2009.
2. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit in respect of the property bearing Sy. No.130 of Koppa Village to an extent of 14 x 30 feet vacant space. The factors stated in the suit of the plaintiff are that he is in possession and enjoyment of aforesaid property. The Village Panchayath has given no objection for sanction of the suit schedule property in his favour. The plaintiff claims that the defendants have interfered and also trespassed over the schedule property. Admittedly, the plaintiff does not hold the property.
Defendants resisted the suit.
The trial Judge on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit, which was challenged by the plaintiff in R.A.No.128/2011, which came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The same is challenged by the plaintiff in this appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
4. Learned counsel Sri. B.V. Badrinath appearing for the appellant-plaintiff would submit that possession of the schedule property by the plaintiff is admitted. Further, the plaintiff is in the final stage of getting the grant of property in his favour.
5. Sri V. Sreenidhi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents- defendants would submit that the plaintiff claims another structure i.e., vacant land measuring 14 x 30 ft. The learned trial Judge has not only found that the appellant-plaintiff has not established the lawful possession but also observed that claim made by him was not well founded. Possession document evidencing the possession by the plaintiff in the form of an endorsement was issued by the police to claim possession.
There is also a reference to show that the plaintiff also filed a suit against his own friends in O.S. No.5/2007 and tried to get an order of injunction to grab the property. It is also observed that the plaintiff after knowing the fact that since the matter was pending for sanction, he withdrew the said original suit and the said fact was suppressed in the present suit. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed 6. It is to be noted that the appellant-plaintiff is said to be an Editor of the News paper. He has suppressed the fact of withdrawing O.S. No.5/2007, which was filed against his own friends, in the present suit. It is further clear that the plaintiff has not established lawful possession over the schedule property. Both the Courts below were right and justified in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for permanent injunction. The suit does not appear to have been filed for good reasons. The conduct of the appellant-plaintiff appears that he has the bad intention of grabbing the land which comes under the possession of the Government. Dismissal of the original suit and regular appeal are absolutely legal and valid. Besides, the appellant-plaintiff is liable to pay the cost. There are no grounds to frame any substantial question of law.
7. The appeal is hereby rejected.
The appellant-plaintiff is directed to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to Taluka Legal Services Authority, Koppa town, Chikkamagalur, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the Legal Services Authority shall proceed, in accordance with law, for recovery of the same.
Cs/-
CT:SN Sd/- JUDGE