LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. versus RANGANATH & ORS.
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 921, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 921 
LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. 
v. 
RANGANATH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2015) 
JANUARY 20, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.100- Second appeal 
- Concurrent findings of fact - Plaintiffs seeking declaration 
A 
B 
of title over 'A' schedule property and that the defendants 
C 
encroached upon 'B' schedule property - Concurrent findings 
by courts below that 'A' schedule property was earmarked for 
road and no road was formed and the plaintiffs proved their 
ownership to 'A' schedule property - In second appeal, High 
Court held that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted D 
since first plaintiff earmarked 'A' schedule property for road 
and that she could not have full fledged right - Sustainability 
of- Held: Not sustainable - In the light of concurrent findings 
of fact by courts below, based on oral and documentary 
evidence, no substantial questions of Jaw arose in the High 
E 
Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation 
of evidence. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Based upon oral and documentary 
F 
evidences, the courts below recorded concurrent 
findings that plaintiffs established their right in 'A' 
schedule property and that the plaintiffs are the owners 
of 'A' schedule property. The first appellate court 
recorded the findings of fact that defendants encroached G 
upon suit 'A' schedule property and ordered delivery of 
possession of 'B' schedule property. The
said finding 
does not suffer from any perversity. In the light of 
concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of 
921 
H
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial 
ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High 
Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has 
earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she 
could not have full fledged right and on that premise 
B 
proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right 
cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under 
Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact could not 
be upset by the High eourt unless the findings so 
recorded are shown to be perverse. The High Court did 
c not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded 
by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary 
evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be 
sustained. The judgment passed by the High Court is set 
aside and that by the courts below is restored. [Para 13, 
D 15] [928-G, B, E, H; 829-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 176 
of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2012 of the 
E 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RSA No. 297 of 2007. 
F 
G. V. Chandrashekar, Anjana Chandrashekar for the 
Appellants. 
S. N. Bhat, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the 
judgment dated 27.9.2012 passed by the High Court of 
Karnataka in R.S.A. No.297/2007, wherein the High Court 
G allowed the appeal in part, modifying the concurrent judgment 
and decree
passed by the courts below and holding that the 
appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the space 
earmarked for road as and when the competent authority 
acquires the same. 
H
LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. v. RANGANATH & ORS. 
923 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
2. Appellants-plaintiffs are the owners of the revenue land A 
bearing Survey No.1/1 of Chikmagalur village which was 
converted for non-agricultural purpose under the order dated 
2.4.1987 of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur. Layout 
was formed from the above said land and the site Nos.12 and 
13 and portions of site Nos.11 and 14 were sold to the first B 
defendant by the appellants-plaintiffs by executing two sale 
deeds dated 11. 7 .1988 and 3.1.1992. To the south of the 
property sold to the respondents-defendants, 'A' schedule 
property as shown in the suit was earmarked for the purpose 
of road. However, the City Development Authority did not c 
approve the same and hence no road was formed. Case of the 
appellants-plaintiffs is that since no road was formed, they 
continued to be the owners of the 'A' schedule property and 
they are the absolute owners of the same. 
3. In the year 1992, first respondent-defendant sold the D 
property purchased from the appellants-plaintiffs to second and 
third defendants who constructed a house on the same 
alongwith a compound wall. Grievance of the appellants-
plaintiffs is that towards the northern side of 'A' schedule 
property, the respondents encroached upon 80' x 21/2 which 
E 
is described as 'B' schedule property in the suit, despite protest 
from the appellants-plaintiffs. lnspite of repeated demands, the 
respondents have not handed over vacant
possession of the 
encroached property. Therefore, appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit 
for declaration that they are the absolute owners of 'A' schedule 
F 
property and for possession of the 'B' schedule property in the 
court of Addi. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chikmagalur. 
4. Respondents-defendants filed written statement 
admitting that layout was formed out of the above Survey No. 
G 
1/1 of Chikmagalur village and that first appellant has sold site 
Nos. 12 and 13 and portions of site Nos.14 and 11 by two sale 
deeds dated 11. 7 .1988 and 3.1.1992 (Ex. D 16 Ex. 017). 
While selling the above sites, the first plaintiff has reserved 'A' 
schedule property for the purpose of road on the southern side H
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
of respondents' property. Pursuant to the request of the 
municipality, the adjacent property of 'A' schedule property was 
acquired by the authorities for the purpose of road. The 
defendant No.1 has constructed houses facing towards 
southern side of the road and the municipality has constructed 
B 
a footover bridge in between the channel and 'A' schedule 
property. According to the respondents-defendants, 'A' 
schedule property is very much necessary for the purpose of 
road. The respondents contend that having sold the sites to the 
general public and also to the defendants earmarking the space 
c as road, the plaintiffs are not justified in seeking a declaration 
of their title over 'A' schedule property. According to the 
respondents-defendants they have encroached 21/2' 
measuring in width on the northern side of his house property 
and not on the southern side, and the appellants have filed a 
0 
suit with intention to shift the encroached area towards south. 
According to the respondents-defendants if the plaintiffs' title 
over 'A' schedule property is declared, the defendants and the 
general public who have purchased the house/sites from the 
plaintiffs will be put to inconvenience and hence they prayed 
for dismissal of the suit. 
E 
5. 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' 
F 
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 
G 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 
H
LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. v. RANGANATH & ORS. 925 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
by the courts below holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for A 
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. 
B 
6. 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 c 
'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 0 
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. 
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 
respondents-defendants contended that the plaintiffs failed to 
produce any documents of title for
declaration of their title over 
E 
'A' schedule property and that the defendants have encroached 
upon the 'B' schedule property. It was further contended that 
F 
as the plaintiffs themselves have stated that the space was left 
for proposed road which indicates that the plaintiffs did not have 
full fledged valid right over 'A' schedule property, the High Court 
rightly set aside the judgments of the courts below. 
G 
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and 
perused the judgments of the courts below as well as the High 
Court and the materials on record. 
· 
9. Facts are not in dispute. Plaintiffs owned 1.00 acre of 
land in Survey No.1/1 at Chikmagalur viUage which was 
H
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
converted for non-agricultural purpose and layout was formed 
with fourteen sites thereon. Ex P.7 is the copy of the order 
issued by the Deputy Commissioner granting permission to the 
plaintiff No.1 for converting the agricultural land into non-
agricultural purpose. As per condition No.9 therein, except two 
B 
guntas of land taken over by the municipal authorities for the 
purpose of road at the rate of two guntas per acre, permission 
was granted in respect of remaining 38 guntas. Plaintiffs sold 
site Nos. 12 and 13 and portions of site Nos. 11 and 14 to 
defendant no.1 under two sale deeds. In the first sale deed 
c 
dated 11 . 7 .1988 an extent of 80' x 50' was sold and in the 
second sale deed dated 3.1.1992, 22' x 76' was sold. 
Subsequently, first defendant sold the property purchased by 
him from the plaintiffs to the second and third defendants under 
Exs. 016 and 017 dated 11.7.1988 and 3.1.1992 respectively. 
0 
In its judgment in paragraphs 11 to 13, the first appellate court 
elaborately discussed the above sale deeds and pointed out 
discrepancies in the boundaries of the property between the 
earlier sale deeds and Ex. 016 sale deed in favour of 
defendant No. 2. 
E 
10. Plaintiffs have sought for declaration of 'A' schedule 
property earmarked for road. 'B' schedule property is the 
portion of 'A' schedule property measuring 21/2' x 80' which 
according to the plaintiffs was encroached by the defendants.
Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial 
F 
court as well as the first appellate court have recorded 
concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the plaintiffs have 
earmarked the land on the southern side intended for road and 
no road was formed and land of one Advocate V.B.K. Dias was 
acquired and road was formed therein. From the evidence of 
G 
DW-1-President and Councilor of the Municipality and DW-4, 
Assistant Commissioner, courts below recorded findings that 
the 'A' schedule property is still in the name of the plaintiffs and 
that there was no acquisition and payment of compensation 
made to the first plaintiff in respect of the disputed property.1 
H
LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. v. "RANGANATH & ORS. 
927 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
".. 
.,,_ 
11. Ex. P4 - endorsement issued by the City-Municipality A 
to the plaintiff No.1, which clearly shows about the mutation of 
khata of the schedule 'A' property in favour of plaintiff No. 1. 
Ex. P2 and Ex. P 6 are the tax assessment register extracts 
which amply prove that the 'A' schedule property stands in the 
name of plaintiffs and that they are the owners of the disputed B 
property. As against the resolution passed by the city 
Municipality by cancelling the khata of schedule 'A' property in 
favour of the plaintiff No.1, he has preferred revision. In the 
revision petition filed by the plaintiff No.1 against the resolution 
passed by the City Municipality for cancelling the khata of c 
schedule 'A' property, the said resolution was set aside and 
Ex. PB is the said order. Based upon the above documentary 
evidence and other evidence, first appellate court has recorded 
concurrent findings that the plaintiffs are successful in showing 
that they are the owners of 'A' schedule property and that the 0 
same is coupled with oral evidence which substantiates the 
documentary evidence. 
12. Based upon oral and documentary evidences, the 
courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the 
plaintiffs are the owners of 'A' schedule property. While so, the E 
High Court ignoring the material evidence, erred in interfering 
with the concurrent findings of fact. Whne holding that 'A' 
schedule
property has been left for the road and that plaintiffs 
cannot seek declaration of title, in our considered view, the High 
Court brushed aside the oral and documentary evidence based 
F 
on which the courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact 
that 'A' schedule property though earmarked for road. the same 
was not formed and that plaintiffs established their right in the 
'A' schedule property. 
13. Insofar as the encroachment of 'B' schedule property, 
the sketch prepared by the Assistant Director of Land Records 
{ADLR), was produced and the same was marked in the trial 
court as Ex. P5. In the first appellate court, the interlocutory 
application filed by the plaintiffs, one Sri Basavaraj, Assistant 
G 
H
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Engineer, Public Works Department was appointed as the 
Court Commissioner, who had inspected the spot and filed the 
report and also the sketch. Based on the report of the Court 
Commissioner and Ex. PS and other evidence, the first 
appellate court has recorded the findings of fact that defendants 
B 
have encroached upon suit 'A' schedule property and the same 
read as under:-
c 
D 
" ... No doubt shall arise to hold that, it is proved that, 
defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have encroached upon 781/4' x 
2' in schedule 'A' property, which is also corroborated by 
Ex-PS. It is also the first rough sketch submitted by the 
Court Commissioner. But though the extent of the 
encroachment area reported therein does not absolutely 
tally with the extent of 'B' schedule property, encroachment 
of 781/4' x 2' by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 out of it is 
proved .... " 
Based on the report of the Court Commissioner and Ex: 
PS and on the above findings the first appellate court ordered 
delivery of possession of 'B' schedule property. In our view, the 
E 
said findings of fact do not suffer from any perversity and the 
same ought not to have been interfered by the High Court. 
F 
14. Before the courts below, defendants have taken a plea 
that they had encroached a width of 21/2 feet in the road only 
on the northern side as a result of which width of road towards 
northern side is reduced from 30 feet to 271/2 feet. Both the 
courts below negatived
the said plea holding that there are no 
traces of encroachment of 80' x 3' by the defendants on the 
northern side. 
G 
15. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the 
courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that 
plaintiffs have established their right in 'A' schedule property. 
In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial 
questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no 
H substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, 
·-
LAXMIDEVAMMA & ORS. v. RANGANATH & ORS. 
929 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has 
A 
earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she could 
not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to 
hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In 
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent 
findings of fact cannot- be upset by the High Court unless the 
B 
findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our 
considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the 
concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based 
on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the 
High Court cannot be sustained. 
c 
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment 
in R.S.A. No. 297/2007 dated 27.9.2012 passed by the High 
Court of Karnataka is set aside and the judgment passed by 
the Addi. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chikmagalur as confirmed by 
the lower appellate court is restored. Parties are left to bear 
D 
their own costs. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal allowed,