In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentioned infra.
Heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. S.S. Naganand, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
2096 of 2012 C W RFA.
No.27 of 2013 and the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code filed by the Respondent and set aside the findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issue No.1 that the appellants plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the Schedule A and B property.
In other words, the Trial Court held that the appellants were able to prove their ownership over the suit land but dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation.
Against this judgment, the appellants plaintiffs felt aggrieved and filed the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
It is between the appellants plaintiffs and the respondent defendant which is a Co operative Society engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Milk.
The respondent also raised other legal pleas, such as suit is barred by limitation, it is neither properly valued and number proper Court Fees has been paid on the relief claimed etc.
He claimed, inter alia, that he is in possession of the suit land and the respondent is trying to interfere in his possession.
Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy, in the meantime, died leaving behind the appellants herein as his legal representatives.
It was also held that the respondents failed to prove their case inasmuch as they failed to file any document in support of their stand that the suit land had been acquired by the State.
The Trial Court, by judgment decree dated 13.08.2012, though dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation but held the appellants to be the owner of the suit land.
The respondent defendant denied the appellants claim and, inter alia, alleged in the written statement that they have been in possession of the suit land in their own rights.
No.2/1, Koramangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring 1 acre 27 guntas hereinafter referred to as suit land .
By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code and also the cross objection filed by the respondent and dismissed the appellants suit.
The respondent also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code in the appeal and filed companyy of the numberification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for short, the Act by the State by which the State had acquired the suit land in support of their case.
In our companysidered opinion, the filing of the two suits, namely, first by the appellants father, Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy, O.S.No.4875/1998 and later by the appellants out of which these appeals arise were wholly misconceived in nature and were number maintainable as would be clear from the following reasons.
In the suit, the appellants claimed title through their ancestor late K.G. Yellappa Reddy and alleged that the appellants are number the owners of the suit land after the death of Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy by inheritance and the respondent has numberright, title and interest in the suit land and number has any right to interfere in the possession of the appellants over the suit land.
On 14.03.2007, the appellants filed another civil suit No.2143/2007 against the respondent before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore for a declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the suit land.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
152226 IST Reason 27 of 2013 whereby the High Court dismissed the Regular First Appeal filed by the appellants herein and allowed the CROB.
These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Signature Not Verified High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.04.25 First Appeal No.
One Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy was the original holder of the suit land.
The suit was, however, dismissed as being number maintainable on 17.02.2001 by the Trial Court for want of numberice.
The disputes in the civil suit out of which these appeals arise relate to a land bearing Sy.
The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondent is the defendant in a civil suit out of which these appeals arise.
In the year 1998, K.G. Yellappa Reddy filed a civil suit OS No.
It was alleged that the State Government acquired the suit land a long back for public purpose and allotted the suit land to the respondent for a valuable companysideration and since then they are in possession of the suit land in their own right and carrying on their business.
4875/1998 against the respondent for permanent injunction in relation to the suit land.
The respondent also companytended that the suit filed by the appellants is barred by the principle of res judicata because of the dismissal of the previous suit filed by their father Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy against the respondent in relation to the suit land wherein the same relief was claimed but was declined to the appellants late father.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are companystrained to dismiss the appeals finding numbermerit therein.
The appellants felt aggrieved by the dismissal of their case and filed first appeal in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereas the respondent felt aggrieved against the finding of ownership recorded against them and filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code.
