Date of judgement:
11th April, 2022
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice N S Sanjay Gowda
Parties:
Petitioner – Chennaiah @Doddachennaiah
Respondent – Bylappa and others
SUBJECT
In this case, the High Court held that only where a cloud is casted upon the title of the petitioner, he can pray for a declaration. Furthermore, the Court stated that injunction was not a right personal to the plaintiff.
OVERVIEW
- The case of the plaintiff's was that the suit premises belonged to the 1st plaintiff's mother, Kalamma and it had been gifted to her by her brother Arasaiah.
- Subsequently, upon the death of Kalamma, her two sons - plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff no. 2 - were named in the revenue entries. Subsequently, the father of plaintiff no. 2 died and his son became the co-owner.
- Thereafter, one Bylappa, who submitted to be the son of Kalamma's brother, started interfering with the property.
- The plaintiff thus brought a suit of injunction. The suit was denied by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.
- The Trial Court had held that the petitioner had failed to establish the validity of the gift deed executed in favour of Kalamma by her brother.
- The Court further held that the essentials of the gift deed were not met as it was not established as to when, where and how the donee accepted the gift.
- The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners were taking advantage of the revenue records in their name as they had failed to establish how their name got entered into the records.
- The petitioners thus appealed before the High Court.
- The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff no. 1 had mortgaged the property in his favour and he had the requisite revenue documents to prove the same.
- During the pendency of the proceedings, plaintiff no. 1 as well as Bylappa died and their legal representatives were brought on record.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Code of Civil Procedure
- Section 2(11): Definition of Legal Representative.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had erred in their judgments?
- Whether the plaintiff's cause of action would continue after the death of Bylappa?
ANALYSIS
- The Court primarily noted that where the lawful or peaceful possession is threatened then a cause of action would lie for simpliciter injunction.
- A prayer for declaration can be made when the title of the person is challenged.
- In the present case, mere denial of the plaintiff's title by Bylappa would not amount to a challenge to the plaintiff's title and a prayer for declaration would not be required. A suit for a simpliciter injunction would suffice.
- Bylappa had not challenged the title of Kalamma and hence no cloud was casted on the title of the plaintiffs.
- The Court thus held that the Trial Court and Appellate Court erred in holding that Arasappa was not completed to issue the gift deed as Bylappa had not challenged the competence of the gift deed and had admitted that the gift deed was executed by Arsappa in Kalamma's favour.
- The Court further held that Bylappa never got the mortgage deed registered while the plaintiff's produced the deeds.
- The seed's recitals revealed that the property had been mortgagee with Bylappa by depositing the title deeds with him
- Thus, it was clear that the plaintiff's had the title to the suit property. They continue to remain in possession of the property and only the title deeds were deposited with Bylappa.
- Furthermore, the mortgage deed also stated that the suit property was gifted to Kalamma by her brother.
- The Court observed that Bylappa was obstructing the possession of plaintiff no. 2 on the grounds that the property was mortgaged to him.
- The Court further noted that while the plaintiff's submissions were disbelieved on the ground that he did not establish how his name got into the revenue receipts, the same yardstick was not applied for judging the validity of cultivator's column relied upon by Bylappa.
- Furthermore, the revenue records produced by the plaintiff's had been admitted by Bylappa in his written statement.
- With respect to the second issue, the Court noted that there was nothing in the Special Relief Act that indicated that injunction was a personal right.
- Right to enjoy personal property possession is not confined to one person and this right survives beyond the life of that particular individual.
- Thus, right to injunction with respect to a movable property is not abated upon the death of the party and survives to his legal representative.
CONCLUSION
The High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The Court further declared the suit of the plaintiffs as they prayed. The Court further clarified that the decree of the Court would be applicable on the legal representative of Bylappa as well as anyone claiming right to the suit premises through him.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
