TUNGABHADRA SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. Vs. A. VENKATAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This, revision petition is by the defendant in O.S. No. 142/1987 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Shimoga. The plaintiff-Venkatappa filed the suit seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Thungabhadra Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd. from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property described in the schedule to the suit measuring 1-20 guntas, situate in S.No. 135, Hosudi village in Shimoga Taluk. He also sought by LA. No. 1 the temporary injunction. That was resisted by the defendant who entered appearance and by filing I.A. No. 3 he sought the injunction to be vacated. By a common order passed on LA. Nos. 1 and 3, I.A. No.1 came to be allowed and the ex parte temporary injunction was made absolute while the prayer for vacating the same was rejected by rejecting LA. No. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant appealed to the Court of the Civil Judge, Shimoga, in M.A. No. 16/1986. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been preferred by the defendant under Sec. 115 of the C.P.C.

(2.) Normally, as a rule, High Court in its revisional jurisdiction will rarely interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court in regard to possession, unless such conclusions are based no material at all or are so perverse and unjust, no reasonable man would have come to such conclusion.

(3.) In this case, the Trial Court acted on the basis of the fine paid by the plaintiff to the Government for cultivating unauthorisedly the Government land as alleged by the plaintiff. It also placed reliance on the extracts of the record of rights where the plaintiff was shown as cultivator of part of S. No. 135 of the aforementioned village and came to the conclusion that on the date of the suit the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule land. The defendant-Company contended that the land in question was in fact granted by the Government to the Sugar Factory as evidenced by the map accompanying the land grant certificate produced by it. The extent of the grant was mentioned and the area granted was also shown in colour on the sketch. Therefore, the fact that the plaintiff had, paid the fine for cultivating unauthorisedly the alleged Government land would be no evidence at all for proving Ms possession, when possession of the land had long been handed over to the defendant- Company by the Government.