Puttananja Setty vs Madasetty on 3 June, 2008

 

defendant is in actual possessiorn and     'A u

of 2 acres 26 gunms of the   

part of earlier 445/24 which.»ha.s  e.esig13edAv..itbeVVssb-
number 704 ener the     rival
contentions ll-'E133 by  as
many as fbur issues R31"   read as

1]    that he is the
  of the suit
   pmves the alleged
  ifihextllcfit  """ "Ifiade by the defendant into his
   'possession and enjoyment of the suit
     Property 'r'
 ..  the defendant proves that the suit of
the plamnn" is bsned by the principles of
Iesjudicata under Section 11 of the CPC 'P

 iv) To what deereeororderthepartiesaleentitled ?

la



trial Court and aemnimgiy the appcai med by   
was dismifiscd. It is in that context      

Court in this second appeal.

7. This Court whiicVfl.1£:--..a}).1f)ca:nl on 16.6:20=I)4
frammi the fblltjvfrjng s;;b.sfB3r1¥:i§);iA f.»}q1iéafi:}:;.s'V" of law for
cxansizieration:        

1)  4 a:1;1"'deom, e of thc Court

   to do complete
   the appellarlt to pmducc
  show that the judgments and
  and not efiiectivc as held in

L_ T  reported in 11.32 2003 KM 1537 '9
H   Orcicr 47 Rule 21 am by the Apex
  requires harmonious ini:e1"prctai:ion to
admit the document sought to be produced in
this appeal and wlacthezr the right of second

appeal cm: be considered as subsmntiai in

J:



then:-, has been any revenue pmeewjngs ten  t;h_e. 

extent {if 5 acres of land garateti   t¢'1v p'1'1'iV

plaintifi' in possession ef the   i31_1 ' the :3VfIL:iV&a:*:4_Vl_}a11;}fi, VA

insofar as the claim put firrth by   is 
that the grant made was   Stages A  grant
(lerfificate. However     and spot
mahazazr which  etetement Iecrrrded
would ind.i<_~ate the possession of
the defe1;§véf!$é*;fii"v;'r:a';§f5§_V  This wou.ki. 3130
indicate    tile grant eexfificate issued

by the Talisflflar iii  24, the actttlai extent available

"'~t<;r_   in the giant made under the

 I11 that context, the plahififf was required

   to e3t#a'i3Ii.$a1v1«  mum than jusit E3x.P1 ami the sketch

 'annexeti  same' In any event, even before the trial

 V' '2(,}:e1i3'E;"._§1h.B 'C-0I31l1':iSSi0IIeI' had been appointed. That apart

  had ales: amminteti 3 Commissicxner as Imtiectd

T '4..:a';15e&}e, Though the Iearn.ed emmsel for the appellant has:

  erbjec.-ti<:o1.1 to the repnrt sublnittaed by the C-Q-mmiesioner

i

6



I1

and Sri Shinde icanwd counsel fi'.;)I'm »1_;he   u

contended that the Commissimtacr 'S  1Z§:pCf1'"€T i; 

013., a perusal of the same': vr{o1.1lti"'.:i1i(ii(:aIz?;V' ffizafi tliaeé

Cbmmissionem' has takcn note sf   to
the gmlt and the 1na31n6'1':f_:§i7  fl1.§:.:t:.I.:.as  '#30116 in
ltspcct of the  Sy.  The
pztaciwdings  iflgefi  the d.ef¢=:m3anii
was assigned     Consiclerring
all theme   I  the vitaw that in so ,fi"-ll'
as the  {W9  have bfifiéfi ffmlned by this

Court, __ cfiiissideljfig  131:: fact that the

" C1g:acu1i;__:§;1t;b_ hmi1"*m}<:en on lflmifl and fllfilfiafffif tile:

 §E.'»(')1E}I'2!:fE'i5§ri(§1%l'€3}'? *§2Ef:#t?'.élpp()iIltB€1 at the wqtzest of the: appellant

    §TI3; 6"'lEI)('Z)I'é,:§!_,;;a'i)II}Zi1iffb("'i by the C-'()H1}I}iSS"i(}"fl6I' aim indinams

 ' 'E1Vt3f8.flS''i?§?.ii":}'i.,l'£'vfg'r"!I'f] ft) thrr acttlaf pcmsmssinzt of the lands in

 AA S$*.N0.445, tilt question miwi would have: in be

  against tht: appellant.

1.

I”!

1 1. Amemmgly consiticligng the fact T’ ‘
Court as Well as firm First Appeiiatg ‘

the evidfincae which ware: avaiiahie on and i_;a§r’t: i:0rsi1é” V

be a mnculmnt finding of $01: “1’ega1.I.i* ‘of
posscssien of the land, Ivan; of 1316 “that tliévkéwastié docs
net call 1331” i.’l1fC1’fi3I”€I1(‘£ accmtiingly

dismissed. No o:a.er as te::;:os§ts;;..:

Sd/fig
§a&g%