TBLE PBGH COLERT QF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATBII) mrs '£"HIZ 27"' 0:: ;Azx1;A§.Y, 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR, JUSTICE H.N. Naamxiomm 1353 V "'
R,S.A. No. 1335:2905' .
BETWEEN :
9
Sznt. KAMALA AKKASALTEE
mo. SHESHAGIRI AKKASALI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS " «-
REC. GUJMDI VILLAGE __
KIENDAPURTALUK V ' "
Uf.}{§PIEIST.~576lG1,.
{BY Sri. V 3."
AND: ....
Sri. CHANDRAYYF} Ammx .
44YEARS - »--
szo. smsnu ACHARI'
RID. uPPn~;:'AI<z;::3RE V'LLLAGE
" ' ..... ..
DIST -3 13.1. .. . RESPONDENT
(Bx? ViT’;;£YA}ér:.;ég.KiAsIL ADV.)
~ ~ ms RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 190 01? CPC AGAINST
.1 AND DEGREE DATEE 13.02.2006 PASSED IN
R;.A.”2\éc._»_165i1999 ON rem FEE OF ‘lf’I~:{E CIVIL JUDGE {SR.DN.),
2:£;}z9′;.-:.:>L*1’a., DIS-Evfififizfli} THE AP§’EAL AN’£.L’ coz~:’.!§=…z:¢m~:G
m::; JU3.X.iMJ:£N’1’AN}.) unuxhn i)A’1′.l:;J,J 29.21.2997 rAs:sr;;.> m 0.5.
N’0.x 2831982 ON THE FEE OF PRL. C} (JR. DN.) & IMFC. CIVII,
A gvjggg rm nu \ I/”T “sun ADL1RJa’_
‘JLL-All ‘3-I} J.\K.r’LVJ_v’J. I-«I.
THIS RSA C0§\rm~IG ON FOR IEARING THIS DAY, TIE
COURT DELIVERED T1133”. FOLLOWHQG;
gL\~**
The defendants entered appearatzce before the Trial Court and filed written
statement inter aiia contending that by spending huge sum of money:
Rs.20,000r’– they have constructed the heusc, dug a well and ”
the irees. On the basis of pleadings, the ma: Cour: fi~aned.%t;;é’–f§uoLm7:g 1% ‘ ‘
six muss.
gf mg; suits
Whether the plaintiff pravrm -tl__1uat ht’? 3:; lawful;
and enjoyment of the “as ‘€16 of
Whether mg plaintiff of the
Will he ha; ac: §1a:rga%T:t’2
he has given the
of the defendant for his
fiaséessim of the same?
th¢v’p1aifi£iufl’ prerves his lawful possession
has been obstructed and hitesfered by
. . . . . ..
‘~
‘ defemiants prev: that they acquntd’ the suit
i’i§fr:’ii§o. I on Darkhast and in possession of the suit A
§r;”hedule properties and the suit for injzmction is not
mafiztainable?
What decree er order’?
gm
4. Ewing the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died. One
Chandraiah Achari claiming to be $16 Iegatee under the will
10.05.1977 executed by the plaintifi” came on record as he has ”
to the scheduie pmperty. Before the Trial Court the pla’mti£f e;g::.§.{:eaijtw6
witnesses as P.W.I and P.W.2 and got marRed.’E§i.P;1«
defendants examined {lace witnesses as I3.W.i ‘The’
aficr heafmg arguments and on t11c.f3i:r.ading:&-..:
documentary evidence on record flag: fiscréemg
the suit of the plaintifi. Aggrieved by Mgagem; Txial com the
defendants filed an appea; before tE11é’I.x3’$f:§:rv;¥’&;1;V:3V<a11;a.t.V€é RA. No.
l6$f1999 and the 4' judgrnent dated
13.02.2006. .. V
5. Heard érguinents and perused the entire appeal
papers.
6._Afi:h§”fi§§1e’ €:f.va@i2n1’ssion of this appeal this Court framed the
“—VVi’e1IowingA agflpsmxtiéf Ltiuéfition of law.
n .. “Wiaemer the Courts below were justified in placing
réliance an die finding recorded while disposing ofi
% ~~.fi1§c iaterlocutery application fiiw under Order 22 Rule 5
filedbyt11er%dent’hereinsceki’ng!ooo:neonrecord’a1
hoidingthatthewillsetlmhrytherespondentstood
aw”
conclusively established particularly’ in the light of the
judgment of this Com: fii the case of Mrs. Mary Joyce
Poonaeha vs. MES. KT. Plantations reported in me 1995 ‘T ..
Kat”. 832.”
7. It is not in dispute that during the pend’enc:e_Aot’itixeiisueitibeiiozje . it”s:
‘I’1ialCourt the piaintifl” died on 30.0i.19l£§l’;’*
one Chandraiah Aehari filed LA: No. 12 to
implead him as the legal representefive on the basis
of a regisiered will dated” 1§l.05.:l’§77 by the
deceased application inter
alia eontendirig felliieafidaudttlent, forged one and
piaintifi’ hasi-i:ot._ this LA. No. 2 P,W.1 was
examined anddefei1d:e1ts”hoVe.ifoli§*”–ei’oss–examined hiin. The Trial Court
after nea;~i;gsrgumén¢s§~:de order dated 93.04.2999 allowed LA. No. 2
fipglicant tomeome on record as the legal representative
ofiee jeigeiiggeien the strength of the will dated 10.05.1977.
3. Of: issues framed by the ‘I’rial Court separate evidence was
oae’c:§i;ea_Sg both the parties. On the side of plaintifis 9.9.2.1 and P.W.2
and on the side of defendants B.W.i to I).W.3 were
_iei:a1i1ined. Therefore the evidence recorded on LA. No. 2 was entirely
éfierent from the evidence recorded on the merits of the case. The Trial
GP,»
the Trial Com has not gven a fmding. I decline to accept this contention
of the learned eounse! for the defendants. In Om Prakaslfs case the seogée
of Order 41 Iiule 24 C?C was not considered. In the instant ~
Lower Appeliate Court by exercising its power under
CFC gave a finding on issue No. 2 relating to flieeeniiiizenetes -ofx
Therefore the iaw declared by the Himaeigai id
Prakash’s case has no application to the feetseii V’ V
10. The subfstantia1ques*:ion”ofi.-szw ieddaiisaafefed aceordingiy
and for the reasons statedfabme, éieioissed with no
order as to costs.