Gowda, Adv.)
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BA;EV'G4T'5«.E_.f)j:F;§.TE_: 4_ _
DATED THIS THE 20*" DAY OF Aueusffzoiio ._ 3 E'
aemrué % % L
THE HON'BLE MR. 3usT:cEV.z«..[§. vEr'Tr_{_j'GoPAEA V
WRIT PETITION Nd;'S§9/2910*'
BETWEEN: _ _
1. Sri Kemparaju,
S/0. Kemvpainna, _ I
2. Smt. Bach~a::Tf_}ma}'_
W/'o%;"e';<Aer'npanna, " _
Agedabou-i:6_3"'yeaa7s".~..__ . '
Botfmare residing 4"
Kundaha VilViage;~.VKun'dana Hobii,
;'Da\1anaha!IiV Taluk.
T PETITIONERS
I. S.F'iajeT1na, _
S/'.:1..'"Chi¥<ka|ingappa,
AA '=--.Aged about 42 years.
HGovindara3'u,
S/0. Chikkaiingappa,
Aged about 38 years.
3. Pillappa,
S/o. Chikkalingappa,
Aged about 38 years.
4. Muniraju,
S/o. Chikkalingappa,
Aged about 36 years.
Ail are R/at FCI Main Roacl--_,_"~..V_
Near Khadi Centre, "
Ramaswamy Reddy. .Layou_t,--- _
Vijanapura, Doorav.ani Nagar, ,
Bangaiore --- 560 016' * ' '
" ._ l'-Cg....-VRESPONDENTS
(By Sri c. Sha'ni{ar:..'Red:dY.§ At:l:v.')~ ..
T.h.i_s _yiiriyt"pé'3ti_tVion_4'is__filed.._und.er Article 226 and 227 of
the Constit'utijon of:.I'r1dia,,'prayin'g to quash the order dated
10.12;.2009 vi'def-Arinexu're '--' H, passed by the Principal
Dist. Judge, ' _Biairi.ga'E«ore.l.~~~ Rurai Dist. Bangalore in
M.A.No.8'2_(2lO08" reversing the order dated 5.6.2008 vide
Annexure 9+ _Fr.p.ass'edby the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at
Devfianaiiaalli on"I_..A.No,1 in O.S.No.2126/2006
fl;hii.s~.petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
lgrolupVVth.i«srvda.y}_j.the Court made the following:
ORDER
” Petitioners have filed a suit against the respondents
seeking relief of declaration of title and permanent
V injunction. The suit has been contested by the defendants
by filing written statement. Plaintiffs have filed I.A.1 to
restrain the defendants or any person claiming through
/.2
/
them from cutting and removing the euca1yptust–.r__ees.
Objections were filed to the said applicatiognjfli'”-“L3-porn
consideration of the case of the parties,
allowed I.A.1, granted an order,’o”F’temp.oraryn’iirijtjnction
restraining the defendants from ‘and”‘ren1.oving””th’e._
eucalyptus trees standing in t’h’:e””~suit schedule, by” ‘
way of interference”._withe””pe’é6fiéfilF pfidssressfiion and
enjoyment of suit the plaintiffs.
Aggrieved, the’edefenéjlants’,.rfil~eti~~l.l”an V’a’ppeal in the Court
below, below, the claim being
based on__acqu’isi_tio:n–of’—t:itie”‘by way of adverse possession
and;evnjoyrnent’or”the property, the starting point of
hostVil§-gttlitude halsdnot been correctly pleaded and the
:startiing:’«»dVate.c~of adverse possession has not been spelt out
and si,_nceVl’,ithle plaint is not having the averments which
shovvz the acquisition of title to the suit property by way of
.«’–.._adv.e.rse holding and enjoyment of the same by the
V. _..plaintiffs, the order passed by the Trial Court is capricious.
It has set aside the order impugned before it. However, it
has directed both the parties not to cut and remove any
/’
r’
order directing the parties not to cut and remove the__trees
in the suit schedule property.
5. Keeping in view the submissions__rnade.A_:’by
learned counsel appearing for the§gpart_i’esg, it lsuninecessaryr
for me to record any findingsivvith regard togthe
the judgment under chaliengfvéirq”it wouid sufficfient, if
the effect of the o_rAde_rt yclavfri-fied.
In the result_,_ I pjafss’
E R
defendants/respondents as undertaken
shall not interfere with the
ift”.i’-Epossession and enjoyment of the suit
property by the plaintiffs till the disposal of
the suit. However, the plaintiffs shall not
cut and remove the existing eucalyptus
trees or any other trees in the suit schedule
property. The plaintiffs shall take care to
see that no damage of whatsoever nature is
‘V
K’
of l’egali*ty’~of up
(ii)
caused to the existing trees
schedule property.
The suit having.’
27.12.2005, is._requ’i*r_eCi= to .Vt,~is:t2.ft’ri’edé’n<:l"–x»
disposed of at th'e…_ear1iest'.~.ffhe' pleadings of
the parties jherei"n;._V_ coniplete. An
injpleadi,ngV:f'_ aVppVl'VicationV.' stated to have
the written
"flby the impleading
t_h'eR'l"rial Court shall raise the
issues, if any.
” plaintiffs shall adduce and complete
theirmside of evidence before 18.12.2010.
i defendants shall adduce and complete
their side of evidence within 2 months from
the date the plaintiffs complete their sideof
evidence. The Trial Court shall dispose of
the suit within 2 months from the date the
trial of the suit is completed.
/
3′
Ordered accord’;_nVgihr–.’:’–_V_ ” 1.:
(iv)
It is made clear that, the Tria!
decéding the suit, shall énztot
consideration any the4 cjbSerVAatiior1s~.uffié§e:*
in the order’ .4_pas§edr”‘0n “ortf
judgment passeudV.._V’i»i>y _theV'”ap’;5e*EViate:§ Court in
the judAg_hjen1i_; uh.Ad’e«rV_vehal|enge} The suit
shalt beude,fcidtea_ttirie aecs.-,{rdi”a;né:e with law.