__S/0 Ii.B.Boreg0Wd.aA V
R/0: 8.1-IQs.ah--a.I}i, Dutitia Hobli,
'='_1'a1a;1}«: 8: DistriCt,--_ Mandya
(BY ADVOCATE)
" L ' " -AEIIPJ. X
iialagapa
" _ '~Age"d about 50 years,
'S.,/oi Chikkalingaiah,
"R/0: B.Hosaha1}i, Dudda Hobli,
" "Taiuk 8: District--Mandya
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY V V'
BEFORE: 3 J .. .
TI-IE HONBLE MR. JUsTiC1f;K2GoVINpAV1f{AJij'LU
BETWEEN:
1. H.B.B0reg0wda'«.,
Aged about ' _ _
S/0 late Mo1}i3ka1ét:f;éi Boraagh
R/0: B.HQsahé;11iV;'I3*;;ddsgI-IQ'bE'i,.
Taluk & :iV)istric.*g'.--_ M:3'='gr1dy'a._ '
Pin--573 118-,' .
2. H.B.B0ré'g§wvdz'1"'--
Aged about 34»-Vyéars,-.
Pin: 57.3 V,1«1§3; ' ..APPELLANTS
Pin~5'73 118. ..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)
along with plaint, identifying the eneroaohed area
letters C} H J I claims possession, ownership
Moliekalana Boraiah. in other vacant t.he3v”
defendant has put up construction and iv e f
seek for possession. The caseVof__ thefplaintiff’is’_r§3.$ist;3dVl
denying the claim of the plaintifffiinregard ltoithe claim of
ancestral property, conteridthat ‘reyern_;e reoords are
not in the namesof contended
Mollekalana in possession
Sy.No.58/ Plead that on the
death of llzloll-ekailariai-..V his Wife and first plaintiff
being the gLiardiianVV”ofl plaintiff sold in favour of
“sold____gvide registered sale deed dated
3’Q/O:1″/ on the said date itself the possekssion
the second plaintiff and the wife of
pilrlollekalanafivoraiah. So it is the defendants who have
“the property, so Claim made by the plaintiff is not
..inain’tainab1e. So pray for dismissal of the suit.
4. The learned Trial Judge has framed issues,
permitted parties to lead evidence. PW–1 to PW–3 are
6. The positive case of the plaintiffs is that his claim
is based on the title to the property. Positive caseof
defendants is that they claim by purchase V’
as far as in 1950, it is interestin:g””to–«see:.A crucial
subject, in the facts of the case. l”t1jacingp’.,jtitle;.
positive Case of the defendant–v.:lo:.V:is. after..”the_”‘_: llof
Mollekaiana Boraiah, Mol’lelta1aiia’fiorlaia.h’s yvitfe and the
first plaintiff as the has
sold the property’ would
probablise the property, but
at the would identify
the properties so substantial point
that ought to have ‘considered by the learned Trial Judge
l”Whe’therh:’the.. claimed by the plaintiff and the
the defendant are one and the same?”
Secondiy to ‘what extent they are one and the same.
whether they are different properties, Though
made by framing issue No.6, it has not
if approached the controversy raised in the pleadings. So
V court is of the considered opinion that a finding has to
be given on the topography. Thereafter decide
claimed on 3 1/2 guntas. So following issues 1 V’
the court.
(i) Whether the plaintiffs proves:__
claimed by the piaintiffs is one
claimed by the defendant”‘asfVi.:’2’ugffgnntasfof “land in
Sy.No.58/2010 wife of
Mo1leka1ana”fio1’aieth plaintiff being
guardian V
[ii] To by the plaintiff
separately,’ property claimed by the
defen arateiyfi if
I 7”.__ Eiijgréiised by the court is for the purpose of
identifyi.ng..__”tire’property, but if the property claimed by
the parties is one and the same and over lapping it
be identified. Necessary instructions and
“..d’o’c1}1ments be given to the commissioner if necessary to
get further report and decide the case afresh in
accordance with iaw.
The appeal is allowed setting aside the H
both the courts, case is ordered to be ijestoredi pi
Civil Judge (Jr.Dr1), Mandya for
accordance with law. It is made that
the court is for consideration and
shall not be influenced -while deciding
the case afresh by fr_,he_.lea,friéd~ 2
Parties V
Sd/-§
SEN ” Iudgé