~ Sm: 'SRELRA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-'--.._ DATED THIS THE 25'?" DAY DE MAY, 2D: E T' BEFORE THE EDNELE MR. JUSTICE H.N. :\:'AGA's«:(>EA1%«: ' RSA No. 256/2005 C/W RSA ND...A2§7._/.2005 'V."_AA - * " k BETWEEN : Sn K.SH1\/ANNA 3/0 Sri K.K.SHI\/APP/--\ SINCE DECEASED DY ERSJ' " a) SmtAMBIK_A" W/C) LATE SHIYAENNAA A' AGED AB-OUT53 E ' b) NAVEEN KS. A V ff» 7' S/O LATE ,,$E1jvAAJN-A ' AGED ABOUT 36 Y'EATf§S»,_ "Aw,/G ciHAE1"AE_D.L' AGED A.BOUTIf'34 YEARS cl) iAG'ADISHV*V'K.Si.V _ S/0"'~EAftj'E'EMIVIANNA AGED~AE';OUT 25 YEARS ALE ARE RESIDENTS OF ND. D374/3, NEAR LT.1.RAV,.T-' AGED ABO,UT'5..Q , 3. sris1DDAL1NGA1>EA.., _ S/O LATE Sri'EIQ§..DADI M A BASAV=AR'AJAPPAf-~ A = AGED ABOUT 36-.Y'E.ARs* 4. sriA;\3-ANDA » AA v S/O' 'LATE Sn HADADI. » "BA'SAV"AfRAJAPPA ' AGED AEODT' YEARS REVSPONDEANTES 2 TO 4 ARE _ MA:I.OR.,"R/O'D.No.2058, JAYADEVA NILAYA » M,C__.C. "A" BLOCK, DA\'A_ANAGERE~577 004. RESPONDENTS
COMMON
COMMON-.,,”R..,_
M/S JAYARAJ & ASSOCIATES FOR R~I
R~2 SERVED
R3 & R4 ARE SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT )
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S I00 OEMCPC
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED I8.II’;20041,SPASSEDV ‘IN ;
R.A.ND.236/2002 ON THE PILE OF THE ;PRL.C’I»\_/I’L,_’3UDC«E
(SR.DN.) DAVANAGERE, ALLGWINGTEE APPE;ALv ‘AN:D’~~_ ‘
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEM’E_NT._ AND. DECRE,E{D«ATE.D
3I.I0.2002 PASSED IN OS No.307/94_’DN THEPILIE GP THE
PRL.CI\/IL JUDGE (JR.DN.)%’1DAVAN_AGERE. « _
TI-IIS RSA IS PILED”=U/S IA00iJGE”GP(:’JAGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED :l8..–I..1.”2f_)fO4’_’.- PASSED IN
R.A.NG.2/2003 ON_’I”H__E PI’LE~VI’JP”T:IIE PRLECIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.) DAVANAGERE,”-_AL.LOW’ING5″THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASID’I3″T_Pi~E.I;JU’DGEIx/I_EN”I-[AND DECREE DATED
31.10.2002 PASSEDLIN GS .NDi;3O’i’/’94 THE FILE OF THE
PRL.CIVI1,~JUDGE. (JRi;;DN.) _D.AVANA.GERE.
THE-SE” APPEALSVACVSCJIS/II’N.(3’ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE CQURTPAS~SED’THE”FOLLOWING;
‘\E=lQDGMENT
I ‘ITh’€S€V”S¢COIId~, appeals are filed against the judgment and
decreedated.IIfI_8ie:II.2OO4 in RA. No. 236/2002 passed by the
I’.rineipaI~~Ci’x;zi1 Judge (Senior Division) Davangere reversing the
and decree dated 31.10.2002 in OS. 307/I994 passed
by the Principal CiviI Judge (Junior Division) at Davangere.
2. The appellants are the legal representatives o_tT3V.delee2:;’s;’e–<,i_:l .
plaintiff – K. Shivanna and the respondents the de_l"elnd'ants .hefoi"~'3.
the Trial Court. In this judgment for convenience the are
referred to their status before the ti'ial':_Cu'e–u.rt.
3. It is the ease of the absolute owner in
possession and enjoyment of having
acquired the eteeeeteaee 23.04.1970.
Since the of plaint schedule
property had construction, the plaintiff filed
o.s. No. 307/’i994 _re£’ declare that he is the absolute
pwner plaint seh’edule property, for mandatory injunction to
l”remo’ve_V the *ur1authoi*ised construction and also for permanent
injlunethipn. V’ ” ll
‘A : Defendant No. l entered appearance before the Trial Court,
._file’d Written statement inter alia contending that plaintiff is not in
possession of the plaint schedule property and that r;o’t,thei *
owner of the same. Further it is contended’that’the ‘plai.nt.isehedule«’
property as described in the plaint schedule iS’.t__1(Zit’ existe-nc’ei.
the matter stood at that stage
Defendant No. 2 filed separate ,Writt.e_r1:’ iistatemeritV”i1iteir alia
contending that he is the owner of 4
acres l2 guntas registered sale
deeds dated o5.o1.”1p99i~>,1e3;:’1«1§_1:1__990,p’-29fl1t1e.V1_992 and 23.10.1990.
Defendant and is running a rice
mill. Deferidant~ NOLVi:%,:$’ the plaintiff’s property and
therefore he reqtiested itheiTrial:_”_.Court to dismiss the suit. On the
M513 Crib; pi?/ad1n;ggr,V–1:11¢__fr;ta1 Court framed issues on 18.11.1995
“and isubsequently”recasted the issues as under by order dated
221;.91o.2-QQ2.i.,’;.__” .
ii the plaintiff proves that, he is the owner of
* the suit schedule property?
V’ Whether the second defendant proves that suit is hit by
the doctrine of latches and acquiescence?
My
and defendant No. 2 filed separate appeal in RA. No _
first Appellate Court clubbed both the appeals, heard.’ar’gu:rnent’s:ai’;d
passed the impugned common judgment rei\sersi,’nn<.theijudginent :;_t
decree of the Trial Court and dismisisedthe suit of plairvttiii-ff.'«lr{ence,
these second appeals by the plaintiff.
7. This Court by magi! ‘admitted these
appeals on the follo’wing:p1’:,–w/o of law.
i. ‘Court was justified in
decree of the Trial Court
interpreitijngithe:s~ch.edule to the plaint, EX.P.l « sale
~ . LA rough sketch, Ex.C.2 -~ a sketch
. , pfetpéaredi Court Cornmissioner?
the Court below was justified in holding that
~ ~the1.re is no cause of action against defendant No. 2′?
‘A liiheard arguments on both the side and perused the entire
On first question of law
9. The claim of plaintiff is based on Ex.P.l thei::salVe.e:deieéi ‘
dated 23.04.1970. Initially the plaintiff filed”ithe«suitifoijdeclaration
of title and injunction only against del’endan__t No. 1. Sutbs*equentliy..Viii”
the plaintiff impleaded defendant party ‘tohithe
before the Trial Court. Aftercompletion’olieyiid-ence, iiatitheiristance
of plaintiff, a Court Commissioner’ submitted a
report and sketch as submitted by
the Court the plaint schedule.
The first i.obli<aation to reappreciate the
entire pleadi'iags;* oral evidence on record. The first
Appellate Court'"in_idisc?i1arge its duty of reassessing the entire
material ori5recor.d noticeidmthe Variance in the schedule furnished in
furnished in the plaint schedule, amended
._ schedv.-l__i€i tl1e~s:ch~eidule furnished in Ex.P.I6, rough sketch and also
AA schedule' furnished in the sketch prepared by the Court
_Commi_ssioner per Ex.C.2. This variance in these documents is
-.no_t..iexplained neither by amending the pleadings nor by adducing
9
additional evidence. ln the absence of any such
evidence explaining the variance in the schedule the _t’irst_:’A.ppe:llate
Court rightly concluded that the plaintiff
establish his case against the defendan’ts,_
10. In the plaint it is ‘easternside of the
plaint schedule property, the l is situated
and he has on its western
side. In the plaintiff before the
Trial Courjiit 2 has encroached to an
extent of guntasi side of plaint schedule property.
Further seen thattne ‘alleged encroachment specified in the
S plaint amended rough”s’ketch do not tally with Ex.P.l — the sale
—- the sketch prepared by the Court
” Comn1i_ssioner.”Eifappreciating this evidence on record the first
Appellate ‘Court rightly concluded that in the absence of necessary
V’ pleadings; and evidence explaining this variance in furnishing the
schedule the plaintiff has failed to prove the case. Thereforé; the ~
question of law is answered in affirmative. ._
On second queSti0′::1′:’€)f£-JC”I”l’~ ii
I 1. It is not in dispute that thelp’i’a.intif’f initially Slxit
against defendant No. l on 11:07.l994_._i_illn’paragraplhl ofptheiiplaint
it is stated that on 03.07.1994″ ‘know that the
defendant is putting up UTlEi:l,l’i’i’I(?».i’7,l:§¢di ” on the plaint
schedule property: ll plaintiff impleaded
defendant Neg on ‘V iiéitif/ii ithellplaintiff amended the
plaint schedule In the body of the plaint
no averment is._plleaded_ agai’nst”‘def’e”ndant No. 2. In the plaint it is
pleaded that defendant No.lll’enclroached the plaintiff’s property on
i’ig_itsl”western E”esidel.WI«n the amended rough sketch produced by the
pliaintifflhpe defendant No. 2 encroached the plaintiff’s
l propertyonv’.it:e_vis’puthern side to an extent of 30 guntas. in this
” ‘ll:ifwzgorinpectionl plaintiff has not amended the body of plaint
“–inlcQr’porait’ing the averments as to when defendant No. 2 encroached
if the;_peiaintiff’s property and no evidence is adduced after amending
the plaint schedule. In the circumstances the first Appelbte
rightly held that there is no cause of action pleaded ag2tins.t_:defe’n:da.nt
No. 2. This finding of the first Appellate Couftfj.iézstipporiea’~.i§yV..,ii’
evidence on record. Accordingly this=q-uuestioneofl “law i:;’aiis*.vered V
affirmative.
12. The first Appel.late.__ the
pleadings and evidence mainly on has not
pleaded necessaryf :No. 2 and no
evidence is oi’? the plaint schedule.
Therefore evidence any finding on
the controversy and defendant No. 2 will not
bind the parties the sa’rne’*islbad in law. In the circumstances the
l[5itaintiffs{‘ar*?e’tat ‘liberty to”woik out their remedy in accordance with
law againstdeVfe1idant_jNo. 2, if they are so entitled.
ohservatio*n., these appeals are hereby dismissed
V’ . Q i;Rsz2«%si 2.
Forythe reasons stated above and with the above
gal “”‘
‘S-{La-Q3