IN THE) HIGH CQURT 01? KARNATAKA AT BA:~;{é:tALQré’§: – H
SATED T}§§S THE 2561 DAY'(‘3i3’–efUI?§E
BEFORE Z M
ma HOIWBLE MR. JL5$1’~3§:E .?§L”S__BOf5A.Ni§i;§L4’V”‘
REGULAR SECQND A?iP§;AL_ N{)A.2385Oj 2005
BETWEEN :
I
PADMAMMAAW/O NAl’v¥~JAi”~>PA ‘
AGED ABOUT 45 Y§§:ARs _ * :
occ: H0§JSEf:I:,?1OE»D’-W{3§QK ”
we N_(}; ;v;A’HA’D_E.$;«;-WA-RA-~NAVc>ARA
HEROHALMCROSS ‘
VISHWANE’EI§_AM ;>o’sir,* *
Mfiscyamz .§::oAD’;iA::3AN'<3A-L012}; -J9:
YA"$3HDD5.MMAf _ 1.
W/O fr AsHurA1’Hi¢Ag&A__YANA SWAMY
AGEDABAOVUT 52 ‘&’.E;’=.~R;S3
OCC: aozisa H.eZ)1,.I.*’2 WORK
R/e::>,1x:o. 4:3,. _15’m 0- cmss
‘*:2.5’%I§ MAIN, EEANDIWPA GARDEN
A MUTHYEIANAGARA
* » 1V13A.£§rc3A*I_..Q’RE” — 560 054
…_€;UVL{§i;vHAP.§fi;1;«§MA W/{} R SWAMIDAS
AGEE} A-;3oU’r* 56 YEARS
“”4-004:; 2~£r::=’Us5: HOLD WORK
R,/.0 mi)/23, am {moss
SHMQTI GANAPATH} NAGAR
x ‘T BASAVESHWARA NAGARA
v BANGALORE -79
VIJAYAEAKSHMAMMA W’/Q MUNISWAMAEAH
AGED ABOUT 6}. YEARS
oczc: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/G. 6/8, 4% MAEN
J
‘1
AND :
THEMMENAHALLI, MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE — 560 091
(BY SR1: C H JADHAV, ADV.)
B L SFEIDHAR MURTHY ‘
S/*0 LATE av. LAKsHM1KAm’HA.PPA
AGED ABOUTSSYEARS _ _ ,
occ: BUSINESS, R/’o.%’rALa.IK?VTor«’F1’c;::.12v.;xAD
DEVANAHALLITOWN
BANGALORE.DISTR3£§’F. _
BLDP¥AI\3A3£}§,EE£/LR”-« ; _ ”
s/0 LME’ ~13 *c«r..I,2.=’.Ks§a;M1’1{A1xrrHAPPA
AGEDABQU1′ 29″arEA12:};. ‘
ocg:;_VBU~szNE=:3sV * _ ‘ ”
R/so Txmjx OFE’I€,’E ;’-2._;5.,I3~ _
DEVANAHAITOWH ‘ – V… _ —
BA:srGA’Lon_E m’sT:;e:g:’r..
D C CPIANDR§$.SHE.KR§7′
3,1,0 LATE .MtL:>:;)u OBALAPPA
,, ._;AGED ABOUT. 59 YEARS
– ocazz; bUs1NEss’;”‘:<;o NO. 2405
BHEKSYAALAKSHMI NILAYA, £81'?! MAIN
" ~1.sz~2Q LA'i'QUT MAIN ROAD
KUvM}'aRASW.f;'MI LAYOUT an» STAGE
4 "–E3ANGA'L_{)EE — *;«'s
'*3"I+iI"£'\}IM'.4'{£-{J KA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
7 QCC': HOUSE HGLD WORK
v n H' 5210 TALUK OFFICE Rom
* BEVANAHALL1 TOWN
'4 {ff
BANGALORE D1S'I'E?iCT
LATHA B/O 'FHIMMAKK1°a
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
J
A9¥.5§2:i.,;;A:§%1's
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/C)' TALUK OFFICE ROAD
EJEVANAHALLI TOWN
BANGALORE DISTRICT _.£–:E.£3_iC'%<~?:.1¥:'::§,1\:';'s " ~..
{BY SR1: '1' 24 RAJAGOPALA, ADV;;'1¥'(}'1§j{;;,'f%1 &;_:23- : "
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U,fS 1G()7..O F._ cpc A':c;:A1e:s:i3'r
JUDGMENT 85 DEGREE mp 11;9.e.s; passrgo IN R._A.v..NvQ.,.V34r/0? –. '
GN THE FILE OF THE SESSiQVN.S 85 '~DISTR_§_CT , JUDGE,
PRESIDING OFFICER FTC – II,'«.VBF-.NG15xLC}I3E {R} D§S'FR.,
BANGALORE, DISMISSINC': 'THE AND CONFERMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE'. DTD V. 2}2';Q1.,C7. PASSED IN OS
1423f06 ON THE FILE OF"FP{EACfVI:§.» «:JU{}C:iF~,, M{'S_R.DN'}, 85 JMFVC1,
DEVANAHALLL 1
This Appca1«._V Conziazg g<:::<1Jf61* 'a£i'1::I.i_$_s§.0n, this day, the
Court delivemd'..ths5;'fo_i]<m?it1g-;V . —
% gtirziammwlfl
the defendants No.1 to 5 in
O.S.Nc…Mf23f has been renumbered though
H1: é§a.{$;n=}.é."Lhaéi..«be€:33.«f"§}ééiv on 3.9.1996. The suit was filed by
herein sacking for a declaration and
':.~<):éssession in respact of thc suit schedule:
'.., pmperti:$}'1. The trial Caurt by its judgment dated
A ' 22..V(3}i".Q0{)? has decreed the suit; The defendants No.3 to 5
..__ ' we 's;f'e therefore before the Lower Appellate Court in RA
'=.N"o.34¥i2(}O'?. The Lower Amwrliate Court on ztrappreciation
J
'5'
of the entire matter has agreed ,with the
concurred with the judgment of; the u
defendants No.1 ':10 S are therefore
second appeal against the cozieurgent " L'
rendered by the Courts below. V
2. Sri C.H.;Jadha§r,.. for the
appellant while” the czmtend that
the Courts the principle
of iaw and also with regard t0
the fimiififien, the have not properly considered
the pmvisiofiee eéntamefl Afizlcie 65 of the Limitation Act.
‘~ to. the ieamed counsel for the appeliant though
{}.S.No.25{}/19’§”8 had conciuded 33:; RA
Ne;3.’?’j’ .39. 1 3.. 1991, the Courts below could not have
[taken “ti:1et date as the date for cause of actioxz for filing
preseext suit mad also Whiie considering the plea of
possession. According to the leaxned counsel, the
“-ficiefendants No.1 to 5 had indicated that they were in
J
6. In the light of the rival contentions pu’:; 1:’t;)rtl:Ji M
the trial Ceurt, the trial} Court flamed as’ “$131. $9 xi$s;j1;z.eé»_’ V’
for its eonsideraiion inzitiaiiy and tvsfo aiid:iiiiofie21_Aia*s.ues’v
also framed. insofar as the ” L’
under the sale deed dgzted regard
claiming fitle’ to the not advert to
in detail, more p:=3=rticu1.:9r1j;*:..ij; eject that in the
earlier litigatiggzjéiv culminated in RA
No.37/1988: declare the said sale
deed bee}; rejected. Though it is
coniendeei’ fhet ‘ “eaid judgment and decree,
injunction héiéi 1§eem.v”g1’étz:1tee1, the same is a difi’ere11t aspect
V’ ‘of wdii§(i’i1ot assume importamre since in any
fifiiejsenf suit the piaintiff have sought for
posseésien. ‘ ‘ e1;’c1s;ofar as the titie is concerned, that itself is
‘.§ufie:iem ‘ tp indicate that the plaintifis based on titie were
tria} Court seeking for possession 0f the property.
tiaet background, the oniy question that arises for
“c{ji1siderafion in the narrow scope of this appeal ie with
$
‘v
regard to the conicntion relating to adverse V.
in that background, whether the contgfgxgtjon _.p’1it” .§’.héZi ” ”
learned C011J3.S€l for the appeiflant:–T jeizroixfi
substanfial question. of law for cpnsiéicgfsiion _”;aHp_;’pea§1
and as to whether it would mcI’it’V}4Lé9;d’fii1issio;:’1§’* ‘ ”
“7. On ti:1isvaspcc%:_Qff’ outset, what
requires ta I3e;”‘riii-jfgjiseci iis, relied on by the
learned iaemsai of the same
Wcruld sndiéafiivitj;s{:?jt;hsf’i~J§n’b1s Sfismme Court as well as
this tbs supra have oniy Ititerated
the iegal to the pzincipies mlating to
V. ‘_adV€j’15’.-ifl ppisssssibii 2*.nzi«keeping in View the facts involved in
tZ1Ve;V’s3jci–v§;Va*s€s ‘have come to such a conclusion. No doubt,
tVJ3駒v111a1112er 01” pleading hostiie possession and
salsa Q nz;°;;”=nv gs; be pmvttd has been stated in the said
M u u ‘ V:i:e'<,:isi9ns§"ApsI"t from the said decision reizlcd by the leaxned
. j_.(:<")<:':1V1 1's?«*::I for the appeiiant, a perusal of the judgment of the
V' Lower Appellate (lourt would indicate that the Lewer
J
G
Ii}
Appellate Court has aiso noticed the decision of V.
Supreme Court with regard to m¢,g;ann¢r"'m '
contention with regard to the adverse::' be
pleaded and proved and alS0'(VWi_i:h to limttattiovil L'
Act. I have referred to this aspeetef nefice that
apart from the decisionsj¥e?i§:d5:{3nV–'j' 'leerned Hceunsel fiar
the appellant, both the aptfcperly noficed
the legal for adverse
Pfissessioxi' '- * V '
respect of the matter, what
requires to be-. con.3it3e1A¥:dV'iéuas to whether the Courts beiow
'~ ._1;ave':L_t3he3_:g;;:afi:er pztiperly' appreciated the facts evoiving in the
vttgpretsent 'ea:1Se;'tc;'fit it in the appropzriate manner relating ta
the.1é:a% oii point. In this regaré, the judgments of
[the Below would indicate that both the Courts have
;:1aeie"..ureferenee with regand to the right ciajmeci by the
in the suit ané the defence put forth by the
"tiefendants. In this zegard, specific reference has been made
J
'I
9. Even with regard to ti’;1_e»..»e.o141teIit.Vi£:l>ls’ ti’; ll
adverse possession, the prayer fer ;’ios:seslsioi2_. “on
accepted by the Court, n0fin:{_g”*–fl1e d.a_tel.:vl;e2Aj:’r*e_§}ee;ting ” ll
adverse possession is also event as
apprepiiately xzoticeel C39;li’tslL’vvvll)ielgxv even in the
pzesent suit, the the title of the
plaintiffs and of possession
adverse to not been proved as
zequiitfil _ learned counsel for the
appella1ll~.1fei%2xied of DW. 1 to indicate that
she heel stai;edV’v”t%1a’i are the owners of the
–[SUGIAI stféy””sei1tence in the evidence alone is not
Wlsu~fl’1eie1z”tv.»_i3e’}f1e1}lVanimus is required to be proved, the same
shcrzhxlill heivexlreen pleaded with material particulars and
XVt.herealfie1:’sVh0uId have been establislsed by leading
2…?-:1p§af’ep;ia{e evidence. Therefore, in the present facts, when
Ceurts below have pmperly appreciated the facts
“–«:Vlliiii}olved and have appropriately come to a cencuxrent
J
C
£3
finding ané moreso in the present facts, since ”
not pmgect any substanéial quesfion Qf ‘A ”
in my view, both the judgments do hot :fo«z”‘?f
Accoxvclixlgiy, the appeal devoid of stands
disposed of. N0 mdcr co:%it;s.i–_w ” A
Sd/-E
Judge