I-I no mm mm! noun? or KARIIATAKA AT THE HOIPBLE mRc..gus*H_¢E 1; M 13 ct A ll.-.._t1._iIi"'\? '.;fnnn_::'". Hm:-un. 11 .-» 31:? ~11 '~£UULJ S10 Sliintzi 'V Dani: Ag:it:*._n_l!1_':1B E10 v'!?%% ' "I:).-..I&u."; n...:"-_ Tq. is Dist.' _ _ N:igappa._ V " S10 Yaiiappa Shintri A Agetl about sgyeam ;1._gI_ir.:u1t1.I._re 'V Rio» 'JPC3 _ No. 176 " _1:r-.».-,.A':....am nu: :3'-q. Dist. Bcigaum Bhimappa S10 Yallappa Shintti Aged about 50 years Once: Ag.1'.icI.fltm'e R/0 VPC No.176 D r\ A : lifiti G1. I I-.NIA.l.l5C.l» LIL M utnal Tq. 85 Dist. Beigaum ...AppcIiants\\L/ IE3 Sri Lingappa Sfo Yallappa Ganganayak Aged about '70 years R [0 VPC No. 1'75 Badiger Oni Tq. an Dist. Belgaum ' _ V _ _ p Respondent
1
This BSA “under-‘ of CPC against the
judgment _ ancfif dated ,8-9–2005 passed in
RA No.28′?! 1999″on. file. ef then’ 11 Aeeitjoeai (3:vi_1 .,l11,¢.1ge
(Sr.Dn_._)p,_vBe!gea:1:m_, digsizlieeirlg the? appeal and confirming the
judgment teem»;-.AV”~ea:edeeee’1?-7-1999 r-,………r-cm-{.1 in as
No.69!-5/1995′ 9′-:.m.__ai.heV.fi1e..__ off the W’ Additional Civil Judge
en fer admission this day, the Court
delivered the following’:
r:-h’,..:e.'”:_… – .1_1.-._…:_.__z._.9 _-_..___._I ._..___.._1 ____-__;_ _ _________.n.
.1′ . B H. U 13 uuuui BCLXJIICI HKHIHBL H. I1l?ulI Ill
pfindingiemuied by the C’ourt.s beiow that the piaintifI”‘ is the
of the suit schedule property, the defendants have
x ” Fencmae. hed upon the plaint:ifl’s property to an extent of 3′ width
30’ in length which is marked by letters ‘ABGH’ in the sketch
/
\|\/
L0
and as the construction was put up . the
institution of the suit. the same is liable to h3%ee,vn%
of a decree of mandatory i11j1mefion;”” .
2. For the purpose –pf~e.eonvenience;
referred to _a._ they :1… the
3. The Q-ease ofiihh. he is the owner of
house at Budiger Oni,
same under a gift deed
1*? his mother in his favour. The
pmpeiff to him measures 138′ in length
Norj&h~-§’gputh,v-;VEiast¥WestTwidth is 21′ 6″. It is an old building
‘ ., ifmjgaiets floor only. The eastern part of
i’;,a1h__ih:jh*e he, we .r_-€175 mm or at. -.-.1 n
and the same is shown by ietters ABGH in the
sketch annexed with the plaint. The part of the eastern
of the plaintifi’s house collapsed long back and it was
repaired and constructed by the plainfifii M /
W
4. The defendants are the owners of
VPC No.1’76 of Mutual. This l j
L… p_i_nfi_li’s house and faces A’
‘”‘n*’iste-‘1 of fin-and floor have it
constructed the” h”‘se h ‘.l.’hLe
constructing they shown ‘oy
letters ‘ABEF’ injithe the plaint. The
defendants€.arh over the plaintiff’s
1 W in width which is
in the sketch annexed to the plaint.
Furtherltheg putting up the construction of
srestem the southern part of the suit properly and
, tzjyjing «tip Chan”-=’ ~””-4-=1 auuttllng L… pla…i11tZEs ehtern
want itis. ~11 *–.-.ge–. —-.-1 9* “1 –has is .=..-….,….
3
by”!ette__i’s in the hand sketch annexed to the plaint. ‘l’h”l
defendants are also twin’ g to dig up foundation in the ttnth’ ” er
part. of the suit property which is an open space
is 90-50′ in length and 3′ in width which is shown by
letters EFGH in the hand sketch. When the plaintiffs request
V
5. The defendants filed a
denying the claim of the plaintiflZ”tV1u’hey Vt
plaintiff over the suit t_ the
allegation of enmoachmentaznti up by them
in the plaintifi”s ii: case that,
originallgr, house twee «wall roofed with
Many n.-. 11.3, No. 176 is also
.- K’ * 5*-1 T 7 .
man: up urmuu wan. western wall of VPC No. 1175 wee m
._n. -. ‘E’he-.,_ defendant
the neoeeeery they havg-r:arnet1’ ‘ out mm” or
Wall year 1994. Since beginning the
‘v4VP:C_.No.176 and eastern wall of VPC No.175
‘ Vt appear to be closed on the northern side
mcmg the road. Defendant No.1 produced a separate
altetch along with the written statement showing the
V” location of VPC’: 140.175 and 176 and the existence of
passage in between the said VPC numbers. The
\\./
properly bearing we No.176 is measuring ‘the
northern side and 24′ on the southern side. Effie 2
the defendants measure 24’ on ‘iiort!1tf315t1 ‘ ; i
the soI.1t11_..rn _ide. Therefore, :i:.’:1.e
4-
I..-
6. The trial onff framed
issues. Plaintifl was also examined a
t.-.2-‘.tness as which were
mark”: as we… as DW1.
He fa “-5 i”{}”w’2. 8 dmuments were
pmduoed which as Exs. D1 to D3. At the
instance the “V-.deFen-dents a Court Commissioner was
~ . _ who inspection has filed his report which
is ;£ts.::I:1x.C–1. He was also examined.
2 .. ‘l’l1e trial Court on consideration of the aforesaid oral
* llVs.n:!..«d.–u.__.nta_ry _.videnoe on record held that the plaintiff is
“the war of the lions-.; p…per!_y UPC) No. 175. He acquired the
‘same 1111:’:
T’ a r'””‘u’3r”” “W. dfi d”t’.’;:J. 2′?.5.195′.7 13…
residing there with his faiml members. ‘i'”e do-* ——i-tion ef the
‘<'.
pnoperty given by is correct. He has proved has
lcfi. some open space on the eastem side of
wall which is his house property.
their house in place of old one
one they have encroached the”sni’t
new wall on the plaintifl’s as has
proved tha- -_.e d_fendhntis dig up a foundation in
U1 hm’ ‘ffeeteii r”pa:iIs
to the said i994 itseif and the western
wall of VPC 175 are difielent as
contended” hy’ ;’PheIe’fo1’e, it decreed the suit of the
— :8..:V:At§.gg1tfVI¢¥ed by the said judgment and decree of the trial
. th’;;’3«.V;ie-fendants pxefened a regular appeal. The lower
, I I I
up -hut: wt”. on meapp1°m._me-.303 of the w
and after formuiaiing the points for in ‘ n has
Vdgagreed with the findings moonieci by the tm * ‘ cunt and
‘ accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by these two
M2/’
‘L/’
eonmment findings, the defendants have pmfengjté ‘gecqnd
ap I _ .. . 1
did He m-as-Im * e d-=4’-=-n -mt-=~ ‘7.-“‘v’n-“-‘=”**.” at %’v’i’.:uGut *”
S ‘ t V V defendants have
encmaehed 11p9i1__the hi; incorrect and the
Courts in acting on the said
the impugned judgment
and that, the plaintifi’ has not
estabheheti hie as he has not proved the gift.
‘on the bntstisvttof he is claiming title to the property
” he fins not entitled to any l_ . tlv it w,._
any portion of the plaintifi’s property and,
‘thefefom, the plainfitfwas not entitled to any relief. /
= 1.
\I\/
‘ID
10. I do not find any substance in ‘these
contentions.
11. The material on mould 2
No. 175 and vpc: No. 176″tg;fe..y§siuiatee % :i§y”-aide. The
ft
\ltInrauJ -5. -.r .. ., 7.».
defendaete’ pr”-“WW N;-.: ” -trey e;1._t
piaifi’:ifi”s ‘prrrperty. N-e._ hebnged ta Luv
piainiziff-3 mother, Uncie’1′”a– daiseci 27-.5.19′—7
she hequeethegl the plaintifi’. The
9’11 years old and, therefore,
even the ‘oi evidence, the Court can pmsume
that the duly executed and registered. In
fae’-§. ‘even \yithotit”‘do.eu1t1ent the plaintiff being the son of the
he is entitled to the said property.
a«;.
‘..–…D_
1′ 1I:1.’.e-zderj by the (_’.x_m_1.r’t.:_s_ that the
..L. ._.-_. ‘1:-‘ :.”.= L- ……………… .. .. …..’ …-. ‘
p*;u.I’l..’l!.I’ 1_aI_.I’l’.uI: uwucl uf t}’.l.G rust l’.:’c”‘:’\r’31l’5’
In. 1 I 1 __1 __
title under a gut deed dated 27.5.19″? is xegm d
1/ f: and do not call for any interfeznenee. V
12. The said gift deed contains the the
property VPC No.175. Strangely the defendnntsit
produced any document showrn’ g: the’ f
property. They did not produce ,!:ii:’ifact
it is at their instance the ooiQ:i!1.iesioncr_’wasi’
the p:_ar1_:Les fled Q,I_l1Q of msunetions. l?’ori–tlreVA,r5easons best
Ll..l.I.4 t..,..,….s-,….,.;§-….. g;-‘.-ails.-as the ‘clue am
under which ” is not open ‘o the
defendants, 1: it ieornmissioner has not
not give him any title
th.e”eommissioner’s report and the sketch
pmdueed._ oommissionefs report the suit
schedule at Anna belongs to the plaintiff. The
. havewmencroached upon and put up some
are all illegal and they have no right over
“\fl’l’III’I l’\’l’I
II’-IIIFIIIIUI fauna +I’|.n (‘turn-Ilitn n
‘LA.l’I.l.J.l.I’.l IJ|.nI1.l\’V U11 1::
Ilia; B¢l.I.r.r1:. 1}’: Luum.’ ‘Ln’ uuhI.Lu.|3I.n.uuu, u.u..
eonsideraiion of the oral and evidence
have rightly held that plairrtiif is the owner of the
i ifischedule property, defendants have no manner right over the
suit schedule property, defendants have illegally put up
1,
/,
\M/
oonstmcfion in the plaint schedule ” the
constructions be removed. Then: is an L”
defendants to put up oonst111c:tion”<in 'i,the« 7.
property for which they have ,
eats-.. 112- her'… the to 'a
d""'T:':i.=. fo" i-.–.=——.:;.=–.–.. V den eonsideraiion
of the entire orai on record have
oonctutnently V 'held ii 'to the property,
encroachxneiit thc decree as
prayed__fon in calls for interference. No
aubsfanfial do arise for consileration in this
second Hence, the appeal is
disinisaeci ai: fheifléfiei of admission.