xx';
IN THE HEGH mam cm' K.ARNAT&§~f_A C£RC§E.¥_If*}I3'V.:«HB7$§EV%¥,?§3iI?.i M
GULBARG3§;M A Q
QATED TEES TI-{E zzmt DA'? Of?-;ITJi;Y._.§2{}}G ¢!
gfipcfig , % ,J%: I,
THE HOWBLE MR. :¥_$Z;$VRfif§:I.7-V5V:'£%'1§i51I~1?:VVE2:3;£3
REGULAR sEc:*,$%;~€:> .15/2095
BETWEEN: & I;
1.
NENGAPPAV
AGE:{>:2
S/O Ivi;ALIgAj?PA’§iA[}ANi
AGED AESGUT £:3_2YE.AR$ ;
OCC:”‘AGRICULT’URE_. ” ¢ ”
R/{J S}§E§A:'$AC§{. " * '
TQ ANS _
ms? GULB.?«.R)_GA
. . APPELi;A?€T
(855 3:3: Rfiiia FOR M/S JAYAKUMAR S P1%’}’§L
Lfism %;.’3§g?;’I.’Et?= ,
x $530 };S.’riALLAPPA gamma:
” ,Esf§z%}GR om: AGRICULTURE
R,«’*@ SEEASAGI T
Q Am ms? GSLBARGA
F*H?€{3rAPPA
S] 0 §’s§P;LL2′-§.??fi JAMBAGI
§;GE: MAJQR
36/
is the (:O1TE€I}I.i{}I}. 0f “the piaintiff tfzai
highhandadly prevefited the user Gf £116: W611 ‘-
3. The defemiam: :10. 1 had 76:«a1*I§_€:r {i1é<}._'a.. '5:;if;V'L_L"i:i:f 'C)S
;§§G/98 far a dficlaration that» _is __ abéu.i1£i¢""0mr'i1er of
Sy.N0s.'?8f3 and 85/3 E'f1£3;§";"€;§€:'–§fi'£{33i1E?Lif'f§;1€3"f3ifl is trjvifig
ta 0b$t:ruc:1: his passessicfi' Hausa, had
sought for a d€c.}..ai–:%;é1i:&_i”1.
4. app_éii.%v:§1″;€i “h§i*f;ii”;_. is the defendant 110.1 in {E16
suit. fR§3SpO}”1(1t?1″i{V}’1{).’L2′–V is.>*the fiafefifiant 11952 if} 3316 suit,
é”;)e:fang§§3~1t;»_fg1a:s.%,1 ~szég1s’———-t1:e gxiaiiitifi’. Thé Sui: ézniied ii”: a
flied under Srder XXII: Elsie 3%} sf <::P<;:.
«If; tii€.__c é1fi;j3:féi§_xi%e, it is dsciared {hat defenéarzt :t1{3.1 herein
».the 3L§)§§i§.31I_it€ fiwner {ff 3}=”.N{‘}.?8f3 and 85/3. ‘FEE
V’ “déf§Z1iifiiiiS in tha suit undertook that they wauid :10′: i{i§€§.”f€i’€
the pgssessien and enjayment of the abavs ianfis ‘fly
A” —<:i€:fen<:§a:1t :10. 1 herein,
4K,
in 'S};'.N(3.?8/3. It is 3130 {3011i€}"1('i€":d that i:"1:»~'~*$§§§i1%$__' '€§f 'i;.h§:
3{:. 3
7. The tria} filourt has fmmd ‘in
Sy.N0.’78/3 bu? them £3 a i1″:”u: 3
Sf_;’.N{3.'”?E3/ 1 to $h0W the W611 i_ s d1;a?v’£; ‘€;5;ii'{3’ii;_§h thai
charmal. The trial Court’ of 1:113 }0ca%’.i0i’: of
the well an the;’~i3{,%:%fdE’a:r 1:hat it is a s01*:1r:1«:>n.
wail. The me {;o111p3:0mi$e dearer: £3
éfiegai
8. .V5}?’i}’sV’§; Cour’; (:0:1;f”1m1{:d the”: fiiiiiiragg 3?
-‘”~i::’1e :CLic;-art. t§ie:£,__t__}fgt: we}? in question is a caszmzzariz We}? 3::
Vwfizifijii.1;l’:aV§;r§aii:i:%._ff has 3 right :0 use the water :6 irrigate his
}aiéfi.»”‘b€aJjifiv§’j_S.j:V.VN0.78f 1. Thfi Ag;-psiiata Ceuri 3130 absewsd
“«,., i:hat in 439%/’)3, defendant £10.} W110 is me péaimiff
V’ ‘§}_;fi:’éi3j«§, £3063 mat make 8335;’ maezztiarz 01″‘ raferaxzce ta exigtaiaée
Wei} in Sj§,:,§*%G.’78j8 311$ that ha has gupgwesgaé ‘aha
ntiatsriai facts whiia abtaifzimg the C{)i11§3f’GR”Ifl§$€ ciacrea; %~E€r:u’:€
fiiicis $1131: $316 cifisree ebtaizzad :5 f:’au&u}er1i
balsa»? haw Cfiiflfi to the canciusien that tile W63 is 3. <:0:m"1103:1
weli. Hswever, 1:116 =.::a1nn1iS$io11€r's i"fip{)I"i; ~::iinChir:;;§i3z S?1{)W
that tine wail is; situated within '£316 bouzxdarjg sf if},
1:3. The piajnfifi" has not axgazmaa
neigh.b0u1*i11g iand owners E(}}31"'€')_'V€ th:1;t"i: wa1s":1c:Qn1:i;0:1 %.A_.I'€:13
and that plaintifi' and dfiffiiidafi-3119.1 v«;r<:1{e"usi;;1g the wfifi
water for ovar severa} years 'befjure""t.hé*.:iispute (EO§I1B1€I}C€{i.
Defenda1:t":1c::A:3; yxdant 110.} that aariier through buliaeks,
waissf frsgli W611 was king drawn to irrigate the lam}.
fififendagjfg 110.} however has mm: instailed a gram? sat 311$
駧:a;§:.i§i;g {ha avatar fmm the Wfifl thmugh pump 3%? The
: §3£:5€;tI*ic bilis are pméuced ta grove the instaiiatiim sf pamp
sat tor the W611. The RORS are also pméaceé by ciefenéafii
11%.} {{5} Shaw that he has been gowing irrigaieii craps.
%/
:4. Tbs piairxtifi’ has not adcinced ;a;;~:y%
evidence to Show that the W611 is a {3Q{l1.”E”i1{)1″1.”¥§?f:’13;:”(ji3.1:€*AQ1″£L_’§i.fii’?
basis of iihe existence of a chazaziél, f}1»25’Cc1;;£*tsi” béi(;s§;”1Ai1ave
inferred that the plajfltiif sh0ifi:i- Hf:§::>r1V1A
Wei}. The ROE produce-df_ by thfffi city cram
are yawn am} the So11r<V:'é ;$f.:1c§t indicated in the
ROE relating to §3};':;i'I_§§.7E§/"'};';.* V H V .
1:3. founci that
fififendarit my $11p'jg3;i"%f;-s_$si%c1_' the material faats mlatirig '£0
existence 'éf. ix2'::21i' in' Sui: 03 5390/98. The 331:3
V finéinggj if-3 z:0f1ti*a:3% t§ the documemary evififince. 'E'h.»z: piaim
90 is przsfiaced. The averinexits 'ill the plain:
111}éJs:é.–._;;f: £§';",*?3,:r.ifi{;"'::eference ta the €XiS§Z€i}.{"3€ af the W611 and
V axcluéiisre W611 wafier by .'”?8/3, it came: be said that it is a
00121111011 well. The piajntifi’ herein was aware 0i{“”1;he
pleadings in OS 590;90. If really, the we}: is a ”
situated an the border of 8y.N0s.’i’8/ 1 and ’78/3
now, he would not have agreed for ‘.21
dec:larati0I1 of title in respect eff Sy.N{j:?$;’ 3 (Sf
defen-:ia.mi I19. 1 ?.1_ez*ein,
16. ‘The <":ompmm.ise iS'é1f:'€.e:'e¢iv1:1I1t§)T'~.C(}{iSCi0us1y. The
decree is pasfsééi fl}i.SI'€pi'€S€I"1t8.fi()I1 in
'taking the deéxigéé. if for the plaintiff' herein
to fiie 3 s§pa:*a¥';§§~ $V_1:;zitVVi;.:3AA';;iss€':='~é§sic1:: the cempmmise. it is
5ir11;i;1a';tV fi(é*;"":§ii0uid. have mads: an application to
the iizjzeiajg the dacree to Setnaside the same.
._i'E'f1erefr3r5e5..44__§:h€_,-pféjfiefit suit ibr a 11.-"zliefof declaration that the
' " c {§'::i;pf'0;r:ise Eiaééree is iiiegai is an untenable reiief barreé by
. %:af:::' g;:;;:€r éfgirdar XXHI Euia 322. sf CPO.
18
3?. in that vim: of the zfiatter, 01′; <:0:1}_:;f::c*i{2:4§%:js;..T'31:53}
S1H'fi1iS€S, it wag iffipfifiliifisibkf for tha..{L_0urt$5"'ti€1{%fs?'*;:3'_'€:Qz2;é
E0 the conclusien that the W63 is 3 C€3s31}i:fiG:1'i W613} wi;'.':e
finding to that efi'€(:t is set-asidéi. qt1€3:sE§€;:"§v.Qf"':},;3';xa?..§':'*a:11é2tEw
are answered 13:1 favour sf tbs apVpt3§V§fa11i;'LApi§éa§»,a1i;§§.ved. The
Juégmerzt of the First *S;<53i-rVE:'1S§("}.fi. The suit
Sd/-
JUDGE
%1″i2,_