Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6760 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.24164 of 2014)
M. THIMMA REDDY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
G. RAVINDRA & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6815 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 31415 of 2014)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals have been preferred by the
plaintiff as well as by the defendants aggrieved by
the judgment and order of the trial court and High
Court. The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by
the trial court with costs and the plaintiff has
been declared to be the absolute owner of the suit
schedule property and injunction has also been
granted as against the defendants not to interfere
in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over
the suit schedule property. However, the defendants
2
have been given the right to grow Tulsi and pluck
flowers in the suit land for performance of pooja.
It is the later portion by which the defendant have
been given right to grow Tulsi and pluck flowers for
performing the poojas has been questioned in the
appeal by the plaintiff whereas defendant has come
up in the appeal as against the decree granted in
favour of plaintiff. The High Court has affirmed the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
The defendant had based its case on the basis
of a Gift Deed executed by M.Thimma Reddy. The said
gift deed, has not been produced in evidence to
prove the case. The plaintiff and defendant are not
related to each other.
In settlement deed � P-2, there is a reference
to the fact that certain portion of land was
reserved for growing of Tulsi and plucking the
flowers for the purpose of charity and performance
of pooja. Reading of the document P-2 does not
prove the title in favour of the defendants in any
manner whatsoever. In the circumstances, in order
to prove the title, it was necessary for the
defendant to produce the gift deed and to prove it.
That has not been done. Even other relevant
documents have not been filed as observed by the
trial court. As such, the concurrent finding that
has been recorded that the defendant has not been
3
able to prove his title is unassailable and is in
accordance with law in view of the facts and the
evidence on record. The title and possession of
plaintiff has rightly been found established.
The defendant has not set up the case of
having right of growing Tulsi and plucking flowers
in the land in question and had only set up own
title. That has not been proved. In the
circumstances, having failed to prove the title and
in the absence of any counter claim with respect to
the right of growing Tulsi and plucking flowers,
no decree could have been granted by the Trial court
or by the High Court. The very basis of the
defendants case was Gift Deed in proving which they
have miserably failed and being not related in any
capacity to the plaintiff, there was no question of
relinquishing or release of any right whatsoever.
The defendant could have succeeded only on the
strength of having title or Gift Deed. In case,
gift was there, there was no question of limited
right being given to the defendant of growing Tulsi
and plucking flowers.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and
that no issue was framed with respect to growing
Tulsi and plucking flowers, no counter claim was
filed by the defendent with respect to the aforesaid
relief, in our considered opinion, it was not upon
4
the trial court to pass such a decree in favour of
defendant as has been done. Thus, the part of the
decree passed by the trial court and by the High
Court with respect to growing Tulsi and plucking
flowers is hereby set aside.
The appeal filed by the plaintiff is hereby
allowed and the appeal filed by the defendant is
hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
�����������������������J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
���������������������� J.
[ S.ABDUL NAZEER ]
New Delhi;
17 th
July, 2018.
5
ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.8 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).24164/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-03-2014
in RFA No. 35/2012 27-03-2014 in RFA No. 1565/2011 passed by the
High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru)
M. THIMMA REDDY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
G. RAVINDRA & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 31415/2014
Date : 17-07-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
For Petitioner(s) Mr. H.N.Nagmohan Das,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Shekhar G Devasa,Adv.
Mr. Manish Tiwari,Adv.
Mr. Luv Kumar,Adv.
M/S.Devasa & Co., AOR
Mrs.Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. V.Giri,Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy,Adv.
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mrs.Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR
M/S.Devasa & Co., AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal filed by the plaintiff is hereby
allowed and the appeal filed by the defendant is
hereby dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(B.PARVATHI) (JAGDISH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
