.uum us nnmvuuanma I-nun QUUKIAIAUR: IXAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR1
E’? ‘TTE EEGH SOUR’? OF KARNATAKA, BANGAIKJRE
DATED TIE-{IS ‘TI-E 31*’? DAY £2)? JIILY
BEFORE
13% H«3H*Ez.E .’M1F.’.».JUS’l’ICE: v.JAGA§§A?:i3ié;é’
REGU smaxm Q”
BEWIEM :
mpms,
mm LATE m1~rB.s§=.a;s
&RamLm P-ms M
AGE:55″£’§ARS
ESQ f’r$LSAl.1IE«S
K.a.Rma?:>:m%%
gtgzsmrcr, Ii)._B’.’ij A APPELLANT
cs’: FOR
sR1£AmUEmR1’Rg:3Hz:m?:KnRA RAG, AEVOEZATEJ
E3
mR,I%.§.S.Ei€I%£ATH’ ‘
$59 PWWRMG :3
ms: amaas
msvormgm
gay sm:»=:% §§*;mna1T1sHwm BEAT, ADWDCATE ma
% _sE1,3.L..Ar:HaRYA, ADVDCATE}
samad aweal is filed uném Sactaion
£?PC. agfimt tine j and di dated
1-é#;3;-$1161 passed in RA 110.140] 199% an the file oftha I
figiicli, i”:a:=.-:1 Judge [Sr.Dn.}, Mangm diamiaaing the
7.333%? and wnfiming the judit and decree dated
— u. u must: 3 xawgaug
I\r’3.1IV” nu-um-ununnn ruun MVIUKI Ur Iv-\i(IVuv\lAI\A I’1ll3l”I LUUKI Ur KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA HIGH COUR1
1
24.5. EQQ5 maafi in O.S.Nc.6C.¥1f1991 on the file of the
E1 Aaéfil Ci»-ii Judga {J1-‘.Bn.), Mazagalom.
fifi appeal minim on far haaring this the
wart mack: the fallawfim :
the tréal mart axfi thra
ef the judgment ‘
suit 212$ fix «if mandat13ry
mmamn Eng %’sai&%,-mment being
V
‘E3: 5. fiat a king
time -fiizzm side of the suit mad
sismxLw.mg;fg ;sr,;2mr¢u%dm and in its plaoe: a
by the deremam and this
ifuah to the aisrii ccurt eemplai
the vasf pufling up a new wall the
‘ :§aL¢i:z~edu-sea ms width azzfthe mad and as rm.
ma 33.8-itlg am. road as mm and Wm;
p1-mpmrtjr, ma plainbfi’ naught far the
mg’ p restraixaim the defendant
«gz
0.
.. ……. …….. wvunl ur AMKNHIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUIHI’
4.,
anéafissrappzwlawgthcevidarwefiwdmlayflm
parfiw azfi aka mire af the the
cammuamm, thc ma’: mutt. mid that
an the wastm1 side of the suit props.-rty
had; 31% gznmmd that tha
wfith gr the mad by
amwazaé th: quasgian
permrsent Izqatived
mnnmm ft. mgztm level than the
put a cast to be shared by
bath :3? slower appellate aourt, an
me appeal. flhe dafendant,
TV :2 the amend afl.
tha rmrda as well as the papa’ beak.
}
.1′
6
%§ Efiia Ceurt, at the tima sf adnffiaion, had
fimsfi fig &I%wing aumtamial question cfjgw fior
mmisflazratmm:
“Whse& Em 51.151: cf the
rmpazfimt was En.
}ffi&:§’*’m’ fax” dwlaratizzn of .V T
lafi af tha appe11s,:.:t.’_
by 95%-m’iPtion?’ % A k k
:3, 1:. :5 qmmtism that is
fimma, gm: mm: us; whether the
suit eraf caoufl have
haw held an prayer fiat
cifiamtimm. Q11″ um land of the
§ thy _
fa’ thaa appellant, at the: out
su”%:m ‘ court was inawrur it; partly
Mam;
gym? tiag ‘far mm the mm’ ‘ “n
é ‘tlficlaéiafion ass ‘as Ea fight of easammt over
? V * It is the case gr title plaimmthat he
mad? but @113 géaixmhas mt aougm for any
3/
(
.~—nr–\» 1’:
“”‘”‘”‘””” HIV” ‘-*’-“-3″”A”U””,_:l\al*\l’ll\l.l-\I;!-\l’U-\. rub!-I LUUR?” OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-EGH COURT
G;
daciarafiafi mf hfi fight and therefore, in the absem of
pxaym”§ez”suehare1iudbeingthereir1thepl§é;:t,thse
qixezatirsza gr gantziilg injzmotion Wm not rm
it wag argued that from AV
upan the ;::iaia.W’a mar ro& ci
got rmiazmzi :J;c1T of the
d¢f¢:’1&a.n€:.., this. wumel for tha
aylknt Caimiaaziraw as
well as murts belew in the
is pcizmed nut that the
Ecmfiéiggégzwrfé’ given a clean chit tn the
.n’ …–m-‘n.nmu nxvn uuultl Ur NAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR1
aypveliznj: .tbé qumt5.c:r1 of granting any
V. ‘ dfi mt Mme’ in such
1 mf tha afwa1d’ suI::rm1s.a’ ion,
fw%.:t3::s;e!;’:”V’S1’£.P.R.B:!::han Rae an the appeflant
‘ sef the dead:-isian gr this Court reported in.
3% azfi cf the Apm Clcmrt neparmd in
am 594 :9 mama that wizhou: sezeking for
0%’ fifle mm the mix mad, the pmiw cauki
X
” ” ‘”” ‘ ‘ “””‘ ‘ “””‘”” A’?-.°”‘T,A””””””””\”‘\ *'”V” ‘JJUKT 01’ KARNQTAKA HK-PH COURT OF KNINATAKA I-IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COLRT
‘1
not have wught for thc miietf of mjummn and much
1&5 the 3%} aaurt ccmlui mt have detzrevfi the sfgit evan
8″ DH the ctha H
Sr~i.Pum1’ka§Iahwax’ Bhat ror%me;%ra;ago@aiaf1:,&%%
in tha pémxfinga af
p%am@’11.:a,s pmdea ezgixséoécx used by
the mm far else may to the
exsidwwtm an by the eaurw
belsw and trial court carnzst
he fii @arc1 to ma facts
afiigimtams’ *..as.e”‘ and the trial” mart
amfi’ emzmaclmwnt though he a
negfigiahie having regard as the fact that both
» mt am». Thmrefcrgizhe fimiing of fact
In; a
% T s::%$n apprvac1a’ rim czf esriamoegs. called {gm
awaal.
9, Saints I proceed ta caomifier the substantial
” quem7ana§3.aw, it is nmmzy to reflex’ ta m’ta1n’ facm
%
K
-.-. y
j: …n… 1runrn\rl u-nun uuunl ur IKAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURY OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR’
3
(“\D”‘;v\:
wfisch are –§a- dfipum wtwacn the parties. Bath the
A
piajrzzfi may ma defendant has taken any the
WW2; mag othen 1: is also wt in
wars 8: pathway was the cf
mm. m m-mama A
fiallen £3 aim an admfitsci mtfi’
W311 E13 ?m aka
1%. as San tbs repczrt that than
is rm made by the
éafmafiaiié it ‘ma reported by
fig; dim-e is :31::su’uctio:t:1 tn
tine pmpen”ty’. The plainfifi’
$3 aim admim-ad in his evidsnoea
of a oofiund wail by the
his prcvperty dams not cause any
m the puma? ma the plamjzzfi” ‘ has not
A. m amt trouble it} rape-at of thv: 10 ft. widv:
“rm trial man. has also mcnrsrded a finding that
in was canned ta the mad dune to the
°wmm”””°'”‘w1$¢’ . T’,l’1ua,,f1’Dm the aforesaid adnzxitted mm
&<'
9
p§aeed¢ntf1¢evidmeeafthsparlimasweHaswitI1thc
raw:-t afthe Csrwzzimhainner, tk trial «mart has
a%: a cwwiusian that thm-3 has harm rm -.4 V
the apwllani wear the plam’ tifis pmpaty
;-‘L afthe width af the mac§.”§a’s« n;aé1; azvzu
af the aypefiant but due to :3?
mué wafi mllawing cm im own.’ ofi
ma au1ciez’m’ O , the mm of
mnéazaazgzr ixgzumtiun ta the
said fir1di% af preferred
2%. af law, the suit 3 filed
fag” rm mag 35 ‘Ihe trial wart:
age ané mmm the present
fit {ha same tam, it has 1:0 be
aha-g’ tmmval of the wall
‘ . ‘ air’ ‘
..A 3.1%’ m-uuununzu-\ rllun LUUKT OF KARNATAKA FIFO!-I COURT OF KARNATAKA HFGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR1
‘2: in the patfxwajgahcnruld wtabliah that
V’ sf mgw” and eg:m’ and in has been
{if the raafi m E9 to his property’. Tlrwte ‘3
– 1-Iurinvn
Eéfifit wmsci by the trial cumntaa @rds tfwnamre
9/
l
1
u
\o
cf’ right $2′ the plajrztfi’ am” the disprutnsd road. The
prwctriptixae fight 1% t ow: firm r:;..aa:V1V;”‘:.f”L:’f.fi:d«e::’
these atirmxmatannes where-the suit of
gfinr by the t:a’1a1′ mart, is ~. 2 n K
3:1. in the e£..~-‘fi;V§g¥E’I*ILI1a§«’$fl7DIi§AKAR vs.
ammm REDBY :33 AN13 o’1*LmRs*
re.-wrtmfi Ccnurt has held
mt; “”” 5w suit for desclaraticn
01’ ‘wrfi 3.11: mmequenfial
irgjuna’€i£:n.AV._vBuf.°”how.V_:V 11% title is mm: in
if 11% ‘£i&’ is nut cf
pwaézsaafifizig’ is suit far’ posswsion with
%jmm§m;m%iu;¢mm- En the imam was, the
‘ says in 11% plcadirm that ha is tzsirmg
1nm%’ 5 and firms has his pmpmtjr, thm ‘m
…….. .. ..n….n.n….–. . nu. . -…uu..-nu fi.grV Iu-1n:1.HlN|I\F| nluvn \…uuKI Ur’ IKAKNAIAISA HIHH (.00!!! 0!’ KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT’
af msammm af ‘ :1 cIa:sxa’ ¢-éy the piaintifi
H
3:?
: mfnncfinn ;m
I \
am aaamagumty rm aueh $1′ a prayar 73 tr: has found in
the suitfleébythe 331%.
3:2. “rim Caurt, in the case
Qupm W. S.R.AZfiACK’
has Imlé téxat it ‘we nnmaaary ‘ii 2
bag can a
mum see}: 5:»: a :1¢:::11a:a’gzT5*nV:1fi__=:>éfi» Om he has
irzstant ma *.’:V'”A.V:’,i’_.;.arzfV ‘ptiteIz has: mm
the cam at’ *I<.sEE'rHa.RAM
. nu. a -..uum vr_ AHKNHIAIXA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H16?! COURT
us. mwaymfirgg 2901 so 2152 fiound
had chimed ta be the
am mug&
the angoymeat. of suit
OObyO paw mi $'& the aesenaam
V V fimd any mrmwtcmeni, on the portécrrz of
Eand) T115 qnesficm arms an :39 wwtlnr
'(iefaaémt had awachsd upon. the ptartian cf auit
and the mepart of the Euzmissiane-r 511% that
%
u~.4-.eJn.q ""1;é"d'
— —— V’. .–n-‘-uu-unu-1;g\.¢-1
\&
the ctlefmmant haxi mt encroashsed any portion of land of
flwp e&finfimtEewfimmonrwIp1fiaho
x-emiaa aha: the piairxtifi had failed to
®fen% bani esnarnacizeci an the 31.1″:
thma mkmmmfi, the:
pm’ was mt. entithd m % =
£41 In that maafagn dam mt
_ . kw W .
timpum rim: hm to do math the
prewar Cammfisianer
in mg the mn’ectm’ n in an
v:r&1f}*i%:%.§§” :au:>eoA sf the amaisn af the soil
mtngei aacepm this finding cf the
. anal”! uvunl vr AMKNHEAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Cszuri. 1-‘.”;a13’2%V[ _ ‘ the p1a”mtifi’ has stated in
M fiwi”heA,’n ixfis and em-ass ta his
. Vigfinfaé. the dfidant has clmrly denied
A I quwticm Umlaa: thnse ckmzmmnms,
havfigélaé fior dmlaratinn, the trial
‘=.ra&f&$k¢fi & been gisam by £1: am}. thus lowcr agpefiate
}/
‘I
. law: a yuan! A \4!rV l\.HIIlYI-ill-\i’U-1 niul-I LUURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
\3
mutt mum mt ham gangs tn the extzmt cf’ declaring the
rigldt nithe yiaintifiwinn m such prayer at
aa in mam mam:-e, bath ma
aezinug ermr caf kw in wt flag
a is law. {he-uglq «Sf
daciaratémn in respect (sf
the plafmtifi could mt gm: fig-
mm aid mg. to the plamtm
aka no anmvachment
:1» pIsu’.ntifi’ pmpeny.
as MO”; in the mad which has
is , the report of
~ given a clan chit tn the
% . repart is mzzcepmd in mm by both
.’ 1% far as the arguwt ofthe lmnml ca-umel
rmmdent that the appellant £5 not the owner of
mad Em qmaafin’11 and therefore, quwthn of the
plamfifi seeldm msmmtazy right ever the aaicl read
29%
‘I
.n. …\.–.-n uuunl ur Iv-IKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COUR1
M-
daaww amt afisse and so aka the rmed far dseclaration dam
pmm gr gm pla:’Ln1:ifi’ far mmazoz-;.r géhgoh
Wfia W the defemda£§t;”‘e?.1e’x1A -ief j
patliway 33:5 mncerned ‘
ths swam’ at’ th-.-: mad sjon
part msgh: w have got eésemmary
right fififi the mad ought
to have; right in his
£:am:.r gcuxid. thc View
suit being a% in
” surf the flaming diszzuasimz, 1 hold
was in czrror 1% even decreeing the suit
in part. and the lawa appellate cxmrt
%%@m:ima furthm: arm: in eieslaring the fight of the
V ‘ w&&re 21:: such prayer was thus in the said
.f%p%a.i11L Cammzfihrg the quumtian raised. T3 armwaread
by hcxldirxg that. Wham than ianfiapwayar for declaration cf
%