Sri Raja @ Channabasappa S/O … vs Sri Prakash S/O Chandraiah on 5 December, 2008

=33: PRAKASH gm C1HfANi)RAiAH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANc;AL@R;§::’-%.%”_T~~V% _

Dated: This the 5&1 day’ 0? D«E3€3(‘3I11b~€:£’ i”
BEFORE _ ff: .. > 1: A
THE i~§0N’8LE MR.JuST1<::E Vi.JA"G:A:s;§:.ATHA_:£i'–_ _ '"

REGULAR SECONI3 APPEAL 1€<:.gvit3591 :2<:i4:3§ 2 1'
BETWEEN :

9 1 SR; RAJA gig; CHAN2é*’§BASAE??A .% *
s/0 MALLAPPA V
49 ms, GEE: AG12.:::m:;*:;;eE,f’=L,_ V t V
R] C) AJ.’fAPf£AHALL_I, AR.s1K:ERg~. ._
HASSAN.53:;%'”1__25,. 2

2 %.§ALLAPP;s_. .. ‘
s,£’c:”TL:%:r’¥;3 NA§€JA’P9A
7;? ms,’ x:’>.{;c:§_ AGR«ICi}L’£’U 27213
Rf 0 AJ.3AM’A;~£L4A;;3,I;AR$;I~::ERE
HAs;.$A1x: 5:33 ~:..25_. ” ”

3 ,$.:DDA§.:iARL~’
~-131:3 MALLAPPA _
A 4″?”.:’R;€~’..é (306: A”C§RIc:3LTLIRE
V = .. _ £210. 3;-JJf£_MAHALLI, ARSIKEFEE
” ‘H,Ai;$sAreVT.;3;3.3 125.

* …AP’P’ELLANT’S

(By “s1~i .RAikIKU MAR GOKAKAKAR, ADV. )

32 YRS, OCS AGRICULTURE
R] C} PANi\EASz°iMU§f)RA
ARSIKEERE, HASSAN 533 125.

2 CHAN DRAIfiH
S! G LATE)? CHAN NABASAVAIAH

4

of agreenzerit of sak: and ever since the said

gt 3;’ransa.$t;1o§1, the 17233 d€f€f§£fi8I”1i. has 1363611 in pGSS€SSi{Sfl

sci’ me suit schetiuk-: prapeity and has b€€:s:1’V.’pf§:}}fi:1 gVT. ~

kandayanl and further th<: <:1f:f<:~1"1daIri;s Sfgéittéci '

that the 235 defendant E3ad:' "fi16éA_ Ha -3

0,S.N0.:Z€31/88 against tha 211d

suit encied in compremise begéween fhe"'Ag231'ti'£:s an

i2{).'?.88 antti 116 said binding on
the piagirtaitiffsf ifiégs On these:

g1’ounds, d%::f,er;{dV::+;:1t$’ gayigilt: ii)? disinissai :31″ the suit.

55, : ‘E’he” ,<::L::sm7'i:-. fraixled seven issues and

eviderzczt Is: 315'; tijgrj the' ,t;§;~'«;I'ties was appreciatrsd anci

_ L11t'm:é¢a:£6:33,e" fE1€'i'1}?1i;?f("'iE';1 issues .1 to 3 iV€I'€ a:1swe1"*ed

vagaétfxst.V_ti*;€«..;;fii3jI1t§ffS and issua :10.4 was had in the

:a;€fi r:§a'Vfiiv*<u_=i."L:–.t(: the effact that the suit SCh€'{§.!.i1€

3;rro§€::ft§;?.Viz'.1V xt§'lf': gjrasemi suit afid thtz suit prepfirty in

'V V' vf§.S;'§$§0.i}§6 1/88 were (}Ii{'i' and tha sama. The plaintiffs

' sigit, was dissmissed.

5. G11 appeai by the W plaintiff, wha is the

$01′: of the iéfld plaintiff, the, lowar appaiiate court

.>

. as

:5

I’t’:3’s2’f’:I’S(f”:'(i {ha triai Ct:>Ln”t:’$ ju~:ign’1€11″i. and ai1{3wf:{i tht’:

appeai 311$ $u:it was d6CI’C€d and thfi ES? piaizfiiiff was

ileid to be e1″1fi'{}ed {:3 order of pei’3:na.i1<:11: ifij u:} £:v:ti-:".s 1f1_

in respect. of 1 acre 9 guntas 01" suit lanai.

7. Learned couilsel £31′ E1736 a.§:.~§}é:1i3a::f;s’ Vargziégi : A

that 3336: E<}:-5:61' appfiilatfi :fj{)§.;E'E A..§,65%1'ui;0us

e':'1"0:* in 1"'eVe1'3i11g the W631} re2:£S':3:f1er,1_ j11(I?gm_éér1t (if the

trial C0111?' I§1_'a"i"3_iS Cfiflfifiifiif{)i'£, .$U§lEI1.§§Si0'E1 naadfi is
that the sL_:i–c "?:§§:ih::f,k",§ii:?l§€3'._§i)§'€i1p€ITiT}«:,'\§Efli~'§ also the subjttct
r;1a'£.t4€::' sf t.E'1r:':ee:iV1j1§.e1' sui't;fi:3_:{3.S?:§N0.;26.i/88 filed by
rim 2m: (i<:f€i'i:iéL?"1§._'i:he; gné piai11t.iffhe1'eir1 my
t;if:£:ia1'ati=:3I1'–a11<:i jiéj the said 'suit emdczd ii:

a c0mp1*0i::§§;e»a:1:;i 331$ giég' the (3(}111pI'{}IE1if3€ entered

'"~._'mi:z:j;"%:11:.88; e*¢3'.c;£t–:r11: frem me C{3Iif1p}T'01'£}§.S€:

L"i{:"§{3T€:€,.,V':{:i1§:'.2ii:i __cief€nd;a_I1't: herein has been held :9 b6

$165§)éi's£ii':_¢13Vé§;é€:ie«:1 to posSes:3i0fl 0f the suit S Afiiffifi the right. of this 2W1 defailciam: £11

“£36 s1_iii; Aisciaeduie pmpayty was aim declajezi by the

“. ‘(“,{§Lii1″§;. §I1’ E3.f€31′(iII1=E§Z1’E§(}I’1€fi{i suit O.S.i’~EC2,2€i’a 1/88. Thfi

. Sgaiii kjoxixpmxzzise decree had b€{301TiE: final ami has

.27»

4 1

-q
,7

(i€CZI’€€ £11 {f3.S.N0,2€:x1f88 and the.:i:ef01’€ the, Emver

appeiiatfi Cefzuri: Couid not have grzgzrxtsszé tha ffififif

iiijuncizfitzsri in {$33 fame sf suc::h Lzndisputfici faCE.$,§..”‘?;}:ii<:%é'VT. V

the rtiiief sf i:'*:juI1€t.i01"1 is I20: avaiiabha E9 th6";::_1Vai;s?:ii§fi'EsA ' '

311$ thé 23%? piaintiifi" himsaif ha.s fifi$i':} ‘ E:s§%._ V–~clismissad.
Learned. ceu1:$éi’:A;i£i’Vt.1};:s an a rming
of this 195.

“”” §vi3;§Ve SubIIii9-Siflll Inade
and klafirgag Vg9i’1:;$ ‘ i:1*1e matsriai placed and

I’;:1{};’r;’ }J€g§tiCL2Ia1’fE:£?V’f31€vC{}H}pI'{}£I1iS(:3 d€<"::"*e:e tZ'.I1'{.€§'€d into

piéifififl and 12% dfifendazit, cczpy of

a .

:”:;it:c;:§:§(i””E:zei:1g pmduced as per EXBZZ befere

thé”E:ria;i’ Cafixi, ‘(ha substantial q1i€:S{i{31″1 (sf Eaw that

_ a..ris_es in this appeal is, Whefizfir in the face Gf £1116

=_ €:1:j1E1p}’0i11is;€ decree in Q.S.N0.261/88, the lower

‘”a;§peiIat.e court. z:’:.11d have reversed the judgxient {sf

92

being ‘(ha 1&1 piaintéff and son of 211% piaiiztiffg-is_

claizxzirzg through the iznfi p1a°1r1t.iff. The 235 A.

has met: questiorized the <:mj;;)r0n1is6: decrgfs “a.;1fi’ f1<2cit

appaalctd against the judgne13.: sf

furthm' fact that the 12.34 dsffziadafit {mt Ȥ~;:M,'t3';' V'

Witness bcax, 31} leads in the '§1§E(_?V;i'€i1f1C(3V'tA;7'1dz3%ViVi£1"if;:$§€);$.;<3I'
appeilaizca-, caurt ceuid {ha
plaintiffs only 021316 by the
1% piainmf

é.'::"o'i.;*J:s:g;"§t.£";{s¥: the 1*” imiings by way uf €:CaI11pI'(}I11iS€

“~.cie<:re€:, _i£2 ()KS.N::v..261;'88, the piaizitiifs s<31:1.g%1%: is

the suit pmpfirtgy by zsoming up with the théorji

__Q%' Jubani palm patfi and evan the said faL:.11dati0n

was met estabéished by '£316 piaintiifs by piagfiflg

cageizt *S"'J"id.€I"}€fi in this regard, Th€':I"€3fC}I'€, the trial

.92

ii}

::«:mr§: Qpiilfid Ethat the tlzezary of Jubani pain pazti is

3:11}; am aftsr thought ":0 cover up the <;e:3x;r1;31"Q:I1§;é::T

{'iI'}.t€EI'fi{i i;r;t b€'¥,'W'fif:'I1 the 2"" piaintiff and 'i§'_#€'1".j' "

eziefazadant. The is-war appellate ceurt dict 1

{ha eviciaiace in this 1'&ga:rd., Thtf: p1a_§:1:;if§$ hav_f:~:'*aE§éj 'V

supprassed the fact sf s::Q:a3 pr0u:i,sé'– decrér: . bein§g "

drawn in favour af the ciefefidaiii axe

afommezltiexmd Sufi': C:

13. Uzigtiéif 131$
juciginfirat {;:’f’ VV_r.*,’«;”‘2¥V.12″£: (:a:r_:I1<)t: bf:
*s1;si:ai:1ci‘I;;’ié;§-f: against the pEa.i:1i:iffs