IN ma men COURT OF KARENIATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED ms THE 191" my OF FEBRUARY, 2909 % j : 5 ~
BEFORE
THE H()N'BL£ MR JUSTICE H.N. NASAQQITIVAN DA.é " . '*
R.S.A. No.1787!§00_'7 (::{v2;._
R.S.A No. xvssrzsfiz»
R.§.A.,w:5z;.g,4;7siz;20u:¥_§'j
BETWQEN:
may------mmuu.-u-an .
s:i.c1~m<1<:1AH H _ , f
S;'O.DASAPPA »
AGED 53 YEARS
RA(}HA})E\iANAIi;%LLYi¥::.; 'V . ._
TALA\:'ARANAHALL_Y 3031"
(V1A)SAMP1(3'rE ' =
' V. APPELLANT
(By Sri. *A:.mRN;{msm«1r;A; FOR
~Smt. Drmzéasrman, Aizsfsgig _
' SEJCE. .D1::;g.t; BY ma ms
*1,A Sri.
*:AGEE62YEARS
1I3_ "sri. SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED 54 YEARS
»:c Smt. GANGrA1\fi\/IA
WMJSEHMWA
AGEDSQYEARS
H} SmLbmELAkfl&A
UhQh&MYAPPA
AGED46YEARS
C/W"
ALL CHILDREN OF A
AND SANNAHUCHAIAH
REE). GORAVANAWXLYA
TALAVARANAHALLY POST
TURUVEKERE TALUK. REsPoN1)EN1"$__
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION Q? C1'£'C'TTAGAINS'i" :1; '
THE JUDGEMENT & DEGREE DTD 14.3.07 PASSED IN R.A3\$€) '
302F065 {JPN THZE FILE OF THE CIVIL ;}Ui}GE, (SRJDN), Si
TURUVEKERE, DISivfiSSlNG THE
Hm mmamm AND DEGREE DTD 16.'2~.;uoQ PASSED IN :()S
101191 ON THE FILE OF THE (::R,.1)N), &-.5wc.,
IIJRUVEKERE, DECREEING _SE--JIT §o1§tVE~¢':I£N(:*1f1o1«:.
&s.A 2~zo,.1_?§;§;;§20§5I ' V'
BETWEEN: _
sri, CI~m<K1AH, .... " "
SfO.DASAPP!£ ' , _ :,
AGEDSSYEARS . -- V
RAGHADEVANAHAIL'f j_ _
'1'ALAVARANAH2§1,LYPG'ST" .
{VIMSAMPIGE "
TIERUVEKERE TALUK; . APPELLANT
(By Sri. AMARNAm3:;~.»mA, Ami, FGR
Smt; =J}EEPA51mE3:'-..;V'}EI3"V.)
utntmnm mp
" " 5 Smt. c
. jj V. sxycg DEAD SY HER ms
_1A'--- "sgi.';tj1x4AI'Ht§RA:AH
%'VA:;E9 62 YEARS
ifi Sri. SIriI"VALINGAIAH
AGES 54 YEARS
1C Smt. GANGANQMA
W/O SIDDAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
1D Smt. 3\.'EEI..Al\ifl'v1A
W/'O MARIYAPFA ._
AGED 46 YEARS :
ALL ARE CHILDREN OF c§m<:KA1\mA " -- ._
Iva. GORAVANAPALYA '
TALAVARANAHALLY POST ., .
IURLTVEKERE TALUK. ..-.._RESPONDENT.S
THIS RSA IS FILED 1§’NI)ER ssECIf;IQN” 109 ox:
AGAWST THE JU1)<3E1\41.«:N'r & BECREE Dim 14.3.0'? PASSED m
RAND 1421136 ON THE FILE OF THE arm". (SRDN), 3,;
JMFQ, DISMIS«S1NG7- am APPEAL AND
CO G 'I'I{E_.3UI}G~E1\«{EN'{f "MD 15.2.2000
PASSED IN OS 352539 TEEE1""'CIVIL JUDGE,
{JR.DN), & JMFC.,;' {}1.S1\kf{S£';IN.G' 31$ SUIT FOR
:NmNC"I1o2~:. ' 4. ._
mag .¥i;E'?EALS'COE§1i1\fG-~{§N« FOR AEDMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DEI1*JI_3I{E'.B'TI{E';.FOLI;OWR\IG;
VJéDQMENT
'T1iés.-3. appeals are directed against the Judgnent and
:"<.__).ecree 'cLaied%'16.Gi;?–.'f2_3G§:-sgn 0.3. No. 10131991 32162 0.3. No. 35221989
._pas3e§¥ by tléé Cifil (Junior Division) and .¥1S.Ifi?C at Tmuvekexe: and
; t11:%V"(3iv'il Judge (Senior Eixision) at Tmruvekere '31 RA. No.
ggozzzoiia éndfizszoas vide}udgrnentda£ed14.03.2{){}7.
T " Appeliant is the plaintiff and respondents are 'the éefendants
the Trial Court in Q3. N0. 35251989. In this judgtment, for
W"
eenvenience, the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Cami’
in O.S. Ne. 35221989.
3. Plaintifi contends that he is in possessieiiiiai§d«enjeyme1iti”ef
acre 5 guntas of land in survey No. 12!] harvixig acciui;’e6_ti1e saziiieietider a”
grant order. Ali the revenue records like gantaeeitiflcate, mgltatieit eiiéfeetg’
survey sketch are in the name of piaiiztiff. iie_:-die” to
interfere with the plaintifik acre 5 games
in survey No. 1211, he filed def permanent
injunction. The in possession
and enj0ymentVVof—-1. No. 32f1P having
acquired the e’a;ne*– ..t3:1e ireveaue records like gant
certificate, ETC exwgtctsivvififitetiefi axe in the name of defendants.
Sinee the triedte veith the defendants’ possession and
35 gittitas in survey No. 12f1P, they flied 0.3.
No. ii)1_/ for a decree of pennanent injunction.
V Tixe Yrial t3’eur:.._Je1u’etied both the suitsk recorded common evidence and by
i’ judgrient dated 16.92.2000 decreed the suit of defendanm in
.]:t)§/I991 and dismissed the suit of plaintifi in 0.3. No.
Aggrieved by this cemmen judgment of the Tziai Court the
“p1eintifI:’ filed two appeals in RA. Neg, 14212006 and 3032866 on the file
” sf Lower Agpellate Court. “£he Lower Appefiaie Court by a eetmnen
judgnent dated i4.(}3.2€)t)7 dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the
§L~¢./e’\«
5
judgment of the Trial Court. Hence these two second appeals by the
piaintifi.
4. Heard arguments on the side of the appellantfplaintiff and
pemsed the entire appeai papers.
5. The plaintifi claims to be in possession and enjoyment of jj —- __ -1~
S guntas in survey No. 1?. . On the other hand theV§1efendants”cEaiij}~ ‘– _
they are in possessian and enjoyment of 1 acre 1 f
Very same survey No.1 2. The dispute between.13_1e pmiies was alas)’ .
matter before 131;; Court vide order
dated 15.07.1913. §111~e¢1e11; aixthorities to dispose the
applications fiieti fiefendants on merits with regard to
iiquessioivilef pf ‘Af£e:’ disposal of W.P. No. 6()65f1978 the
taluika sin.-.«£2e;,,~<.u§ x*isi1e§1'-flit' spot and prepared a sketch on 30.12.1983 by
" Ashowing the 'iahd of the defendant and the iand in possession
i"7g1fs;sp1as1ss¢.,Ascsrémgly the Tahsiidar vide order dated 16.01.1984
,1 1 aeze gtrntas of land in favour of defenémus ass 3 acre 5
1.1"»-"'_Vgm;$s11 {If plaintifi". Ex.{).2 is the gays: certificate in favour of
' Ex.D.3 ta Ex.D.5 are the mntatien exixazsts, Ex.D.6 is she
sketeh prepmeé by the talnics smveyor and Ex.D.7 is the order of
this Couzt in WP. No. 6{}65:'1978. On carefizi exanxitzation of the oral and
documentanr evidence an rec-std both the Couris beiow have cencmrently
N
0""
held that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre
guntas of iané in suwey No.12/1P of Raghavadevatnahaili, T11:11veis:ere}o’__’__t’ A’
The fact that defendmts are grmated 1 acre 35 glmtas in survey_No; ‘I2 t
that they are in possession is not disputed by the it ”
from the record that piaintifl? interfered with the defettdmtts’ ;>:os_oeesv§o:1 Vt V
and ozfioyment of this land. In the facts and of t
the Courts below have eoncu1rentl3″”Iese§d that”t11e’Vjdefef;da:1ts efe”e£1ti’tiod
for a decree of permanent injtmction. eiabstgqtttai’ qtieetion of law
in R.S.A. No. 1733:2007,
5. The gugntiottigztfis 53; ‘#211539 sought for a decree
of permanent to an extent of 3 acres 5
guntas in survey Nxo;.._¢1 ?.:’]v the record that on $1 earlier
occasion was granted 5 acres of land in hlock
N’o.’__V8» of ~ of Rflghavadevarnahalli. Subsequently the
2 Assistent C:on121iisstien_et~tt$3itce1ied the gaunt made in favour of the plaintifi
ated– the sateie wee teémfirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkm” mad
Ageoeliate Trihunai. This Cowt vide order dated 15.07.1933
eaneellation of the grant made kt favour of the pla&ntiff.
° fitgbseqoentty vide order dated 12.01.1984 flu: plaintifl was mm 3 atres
Lt in survey No. 12. Both the Courts below on oppreciatiatm oftlm
pleadings mad evidence on record concuxrently held that though the
plaiatifi” has shown the measurement of plaint schmzle land as 3 acres 5
Gnu»