EN *m§«: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA_ AT "
DATED THIS THE 28"' DAY OF 5 T A
BEFORE' ._ "'~~.._ m u j
THEHcw'B;.EMR.Jzss2"1c§: ,s:%..4uk5%i9zs;z%.;\:42£:z;?;I2%
Rgavmg FIRSTg4Pfi§§;@ M). Qgg:._{,g._
Between:
The Bazzgaiore BeveEop1ne'§:;_siXui};_cqfit3;.
T.Chowdaiah Road,
K11maraPark W;:s_;£, 1'
BangaIr::re-~2}') , H = 'I, . .
Rapid. Byits (3;{3n1r:i§ssiGiH:r_., «. ' ' Appellant".
(By 3;-1' 1.G.Gacheh;nama1i; ; %
Arid 3 .
1 A Fhilm, 'V .
' _ Six)
Paiiatiilé 'N 531%": Eaiaiflze Society',
Henna: RC-a§;'§:}1a}fa3{af6 Viiiage,
Banziswadi PM,
VA [ - ,. , V..Bangaiér§_ 560 043.
. SEQ TX. Pappy,
_ N53, 32, Anjarzeya Swamy Tempie,
V 'f3"BIock Extansion,
. Marappa Garden,
Bangaiora --- 560 646..
ciaim petitimis on 8.4.1938 and 6.6.1988
kathedars had chaiienged the said acquigifiqn 2 " ~.
W.?."N0.30451,f1983 dam 2.7.1937, w:i1ich .jwas:~f§§.§z:§4i2*.3g;§! fifi; i§i§- ,'__ j
High Ceurt. The kathedars have rec:=:§12¢i;~ai..§1e .
on 23.9.1989 and 2.5.9.1989 and posse§g'§c§§:¢f1_;;eV'1a1;é:
on 26.12.1988 and was handea;::§§n--:::<§wti:;L%A seétién on
29.12.1998
for fennatien of th§..ia,§}g::t. already
been acquireé by ;>’a.fifl1ority (‘BDA”
far simrfi), ques2i* xrésfiing EDA «fees moi arise. The
piainiiff does 110£i’:3.i2e Viéiie or irxteresi; aver {lie safii iané.
5.” the b3Si$– pf the Vpieadizxgs of tile parties, iha cozzrt
I Eyelfiiv’ framed. vfefiowing issues:
-vréverty?
“3”;*–¥§’1ai§%i1£:r i¥1e piaintifi’ provea that he is the ewner esf
x the gixit. apmperty and that he is in posgession of suit
9′
2
1
‘2
2. Eliéhetizer file plaintiff proves thai on 2.14i.1995′-gt
abeut 3 pm, {he oflicials ei’ firs: def§’§£1′.i3i§{ ‘
in his possessien efsuit property?
3. Wixefllef DJ: proves that {he sizéf rm S
under Seetion 64 eftlze
4. Whether the piairitifi” {frayed
for?
S Wizffit ‘
6. “as ?.WI and ducunlenis
BEEP} to E_:<.P3{:}iE:a;ve bfafszjz in his evidence. The ieameéi
_v'{§i<3::1§1sa1.. $;;pg:£{ri;1g f0rV"Vf'1$:%%-«Adefendant has cms5«e:x:ami:;ed 3319:
piaizétifiii'§~}§x;gr.<;f%,%::§§;"~z1{§wiéerzce was let it: by me defendants' After
' V' . , csnsidetriiiig the 0272;: aiizé dacrazneniary evidence an regard, the csauri
fiéigw has a'¢;=:ér's:_eé 133% gait.
V’ ., ” E i:G’Gachchinan1afiL ieameci Counsei appearing far the
I» iilouid contend ihai the property in questiezn has afireaéy
?
:53
8. On the ether hand, ieamed Ceunsel appeafix3gA–‘§fi” j”
respentienis submits that the plaintiff is; ..t%:¢_ owiiéf ”
p0SS£SS§GI1 afthe pmperties in questmr: haxsiiig ‘d~ 7 A
under the sale deeds EXPI to Ex.?=$§TVfl”§1¢’ pififi§$fii’
sanctioned {flax} from the cetnpetent a::tIi:6riti£~svL and’ up
cmasizuciien thereon ané that T gééogsgssitxn and
enjeymezzi of the saié ‘p;f’opetf£ié.€_i.” is’ .«;§i§ie11d¢d that
cotxsiderizig the evigicace an rewrd. The
court below has :17 ght3§3’Vc’§é§;r;§£%é _:.é§:i:it. It is fizrther submitted that
the appeiism haS”‘z1p€:3:1aEie_ {Sui 34%:-$3 far producti-im sf afidiiaionai
*-j”?§v?i.dx’§¥1C€.*£’J§–‘:thi5§A;~31;ags3. ” _____
H ‘9:.iss% Viiae {ivai c9111;er:11§::sns oftiie ieartlaé Cimnsel
far {he pa19fia:ag,”‘:11e.q£:esti9ns fer cunsiéieraiien in this appeai aye:
i{:I”:}”‘.§f’$’?h%%%hfa’f the appIica:£z£c::u21~I.:i¥J?€G,2;’2{Ifl8 fiieeti by fize
:kgpge1:¢:£}ufide: Qrder 4;; Rule 27 0f CFC seeking pmductien of
‘ V ‘ ‘ v . evidense requires 1:0 be allewed?
E
$1
‘H
tbs coart beta-W. The ci_<3cun1e111:s produced aicvng §§='i:£rl1"
appiicatiorn are essential fin' proper ad}udicaii£m__§3f"£hé"cés$éi_.jV
fizrther contended that if the appeliazzt is nei:.pe1:§i2ifie€i'TTise if
the said docamenis, the appellant bei1ig_'a~.ggub1iC"-insiituiiégi vskffiii
put to yea': loss and injury. fofnthe.
submits that the pmperty in quéfiiazz ‘t:§1<i}fags" .aPP€1iant and –
production of the saifx' _.d€)£':t,iifi£§7i}'{$: Cam to
proncvunce the "
12. The ri:sp:}z§éi’Ve:i’I::e.fia1;%¢’M’;:§::>i’flied any objections to the said
appiicatien. ‘I’§Vis,¢.__4 Vd:)c£ifi1é§1£%g”§:£0duced aiang with the mid
fiotificatiati dated 3.11.19’?7, fisaai
f::}§iS§;é1’£*3:;1 award dateii 4.18.1932, the mahazar
‘ V for :31″ the prepezty in questietx, extract of
vflxg iaydfii the letter if the first respémderci ‘£0 the EDA.
s:,:it- the plaizziifl’ is far injiznctieaz, Tixerefere, the
H» H’ szzensideration in the appeai is whether the piaintiff is in
‘ possession of the suit. schwule progeny? The -decuments
?
;E
R2;
‘J
xfll
12
produced aiong with the appiication are necessary 13:} censider as to
whether ihe piaintiff is in iawful possession efthe property. Ina-…
suit for in_§unctic:>11, the Caurt has ta: .£nciden¥:aii}r g0 ,,
question oftitie to the property. in my view, the saici doe’u;§é::§:ais’ajr%é ”
necessary to pronemlce the judgment”. T}1eréi’érre«,.t}1£: appIiT¢a$i3:1+’– ‘
I.A.NG.2/2608 requires ta be ailcmseci. V
Rg.Pt:£::2 No. (til:
13. As 13ojticéd’abs)}?’e,M 31¢’ def3ndants have fiieé their w;*ii:ien
staienlent. ‘1″h’~: witnmi; fit” was aiso eross-exaniined by
the ieamed Co1ii1s:.él’f:if the defendams. However, the
_ .d§fendan1}§: ‘have nei {‘iIi§*’ evidence. The plaintiff in his
V. $1 has given the deiaiis of purchase 0f the
praigéatiifiég In the crass-exarrxinaiiorg I”.’§¥i has stated
Vtizat he $30: as R) the acquisiiion cf the Sand in qzseafiiorz. fie
H H ” h’a$ .”fi:r¥.her $:”i;a;i;eé that he dces not know about issuance 91″ the
‘pféiixifinafy’ 3336} final notificatitms issued by the cozzzpeterni
“–%s§{§10__t5itées far aarquisiiien 9f the Kama in qaesticsn, it is fizrfiier
3%
14
840.200′? passed by the seam below is herebfigréef ”
is remanded to the court beiow for 21 fiesh (in V’
with law. The mat Court is directed ”
{he parties to produce acicfiitigfflai
documents produced by the appé1§éii..*__1t’ £11
this ajprpeai) and with
Iaw’.N0c0s1:s. ‘ _
JUDGE
82»m;J:2§;_?20{:;;« _____