IN THE HIGH mum on? KARNATAKA c1RcuxT:V*aa1i¢:i'vi' %. '
AT m-mnwan _ _ =
Dated this the 18"' day of Ngvembcr,
BEFORE I ' " VV
ms uorrnm; am. Jif_§"IfIV_(:E"1Ai-.
wm; Petition No. 14a2_g_%V(Gn?1~cpk_§;
Between: V A " V
Szzi N Thimma Ready _ AV
Aged 75 years _-- 3. 'V V:
S/0 late Kouagetldagiflheemanagotgdag V
R/at _
Bellary Taluk ~ ...Pcfitioner
(Byfibdl _s._ }~.'s*331_1 '{k Advocates ~ absent)
And: & L' V 3
Sri N Vc:t:ra n_ a émmgia'
" Aged
Sfoélatc Ki)" auda Efiéémanagouda
R] at Village
T:9.li1k;.VI}ist1'ict . .. Respondent
A Ramana & Sri Manjunath H. Damr
” ‘ Advocatea « absent)
_ V. _ This Writ Pefitfion is flied under articles 226 and 227 of
_j;hé~C( }fi8fitllfiO11 of India, praying to quash] set aside the order
vdateii 7-10-2006 011 LA. No.XIV in OS Nc.303/2003 passed by
fikiflcarncd III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.II)n.) at Eellary vidc
V
This Writ Petition coming on for prchmn1’ ‘ ary ” ..
‘B’ Emu? this day, the Court made the following: = ‘
In this Writ Petition on
011 11.9.2008 none appeared. ‘I’11_¢:x9e£'(:m:,_» it véas: to
25.9.2008. Again on dsjz and that is how
the matter is listed tnday.
2. This ‘is ;aV against the order
passed on’i.’A; to amend the issues
by raisingaddifionais%issues;:–. s
3, _,T11c ‘ {Isle suit for mandatory injunction
tdfghc ‘space used as rastha which axist in
the dcfendaxzfs house and for a decree
of The defendant has set up an oral
the writtmfs. statemmxt oonttzndixxg that the suit
property has fallen tn his share in the said oral
On the aforesaid picadings the trial Court has
flamed two issues, namely, (1) Whether the plaintiif
prsves his right over ‘A’ schadule property’? and (2) Whether
E/,..
the plainfifl’ proves that defendant has put up ‘
over exclusive open passage as pleaded in ‘B’ V H
plaint. Now the p}ai11t:ifi’ filed the applioeifieu-1.eX.No;
arlditional issue to be framed xegexdieg’
defendant in the written 1ie:1_:oelv_g
partition. The said appliretion tile’ on
the ground that it is for the the issues which
axe framed and “geie tee ‘eeught in the
plaint. In is2.–not”1:;Leoeesary to raise the
issues “oi? theiwx-i’e:en steiiement and going into the
question of Suit. Aggne” ved by the Sam.’
order, the ie befofee Court.
by the trial Court, in a suit for
‘eeeeeeee.e;e;eeeee and permanent injunction, the pxem’ tifi
has title to the property in question and then he
to Show that the defendant has iemegm that right by
” upon. the property and putting up a construcfion
…_’ befo1e a decree for mandatory injunction could be passed. If
‘4 defendant has set up an oral partition under which the
suit seheduk property has fallen to his share, it is not
52/
necessazy for the Court to frame: an issue A’
partition and decide the title of the dcfcndantu: ‘ b
property. Therefore, the said additiona1¥_
to be raised by the : does not arise for considgxafian <
in the suit and the trial Court
same. Therefore, there ac)'.
Accordingly, itisdismissed. &% # ” .3 ” VA ”
_ V Sd/’
Judge