LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. Versus RANGANATH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2015

LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. .. Appellants

Versus

RANGANATH & ORS. .. Respondents

Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of ‘A’ schedule property and entitled to possession of ‘B’ schedule property to an extent of 2’ x 781/4’ i.e. 2 feet north-south 781/4 feet east-west and defendants 2 and 3 were directed to deliver vacant possession of the said land to the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved, the defendants filed appeal before the first appellate court–Fast Track Court, Chikmagalur. The first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 13.10.2006. The unsuccessful defendants preferred second appeal before the High Court, which by the impugned judgment dated 27.9.2012 allowed the second appeal in part and modified the judgment and decree passed by the courts below holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation for the space which was earmarked for road if the same was acquired by the competent authority. High Court held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit ‘A’ schedule property and consequently their claim for injunction was also not granted. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the courts below have recorded concurrent findings that ‘A’ schedule property was earmarked for road and that no road was formed and the plaintiffs have proved their ownership to ‘A’ schedule property and that the defendants have failed to prove that it is a road having the nearest approach. It was submitted that when the courts below have recorded concurrent findings, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., the High Court erred in re-appreciating the evidence and in interfering with the findings. It was further contended that the High Court erred in holding that there is a delay in instituting the suit for relief for mandatory injunction as both the courts below have rightly held that the suit is within limitation and that the defendants have encroached upon the plaintiffs’ property….read more