IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAMGALORE .
Dated: Thia the i2iZ3″»h day cf Nevember 2908,
BEFORE
-THE HONBLE I\:’1R’.JUS’I’i£’;E3 v.JAGANN’5THg§N
REGU LAR SECQN D APPEAL’ No: :é42s?7’i_25Ga_’: ” , V ” ‘
BETWEEN:
SR1 RAMACHANDRA gov: ‘V
Si 0 SR1 HANUh;§§§NTHA¢VAB’£;”-Ii’
AGED ABQUT 41 YEARES _ . ”
£2/<3 BYRASAN{)R1§\§iLL9:.%3E§»'
TAYALUR HOBLI, MWI}L=AB3§.G:AL*"'FAL{3f}{='
KOLAR m$'m1c:I?'563 – «V *
. .. APPELLANT
§B§;mS:~i 'P513: Aiiiv; ' '}
AND: ' V ' V" 1'
SR1 SREERA?4iA'I?Pi–'a''
_; 'Sm SRIWTENKATARAMAPPA
' gear) ABO'Uv'}–'-'—-S'? YEARS
. 3 RJ;.:;:« ETETRASANBRA VILLAGE
T _ mv fi;L!}'R–.HQBLi, MULABAGAL TALUK
. Kvc§'LAR..T'Q.1~sTR1cr 553 1315
" ..,RESP(i)I'e'£)ENT
2 ..R$.:A' 53:53:) U'}S. 100 OF CEPCE ACEAWST THE:
;:m:}GEi'MEN'*? 32:. DEGREE $35330: 1"~3.4.2Q(}fi mgsan
" –..:'1r~»:.. ..nA–';2.A.;~£a.92/c3003 cm: THE FiLE2 are' THE
W' .§3.DDL.E)1S'f'RiCfF JUDGE 35 PRES11Z)iN(} {}F"F'I{if:',R, ms'?
" *rRA«:::«-; (1'.£;'}UR'1"'–§i3, KOLAR, DiSMESSii\EG THE. Appaaxi
ANS C()NP'iRMING THE JUf)GrfiMENT AND DFECREE';
DATED: 28.3.2863 PASSED IN OSNO. 356/1'§86 ON
tbs suit flied E3}; the def<~:ndam:, the trial court couki
not have held that. {ha plaintiff has failcd ti:
ownership over the suit schedule propaxty.
it is contended that even the licence has. ,iSsf.zed "
in fav-:}ur of the plaintiff for 'V ; .A
building and this is cleaf VfIu'OII1' Efi'§.Pv4.1 T3€;1CZT§f01T;i*:, VA
merely because there is S9136-.vwrQng Ckasséfsfipiion cf
measu:*emer:ai, the C{}1§1*.i$' b€}O§§* 'G§U}d mot have
dismissed the claim Qf'tize::pIéiIffi:ifT. .. " '
4. ..t;he:’ flzeve submission and
after “going ‘th <i'– judgments of the caurts
beiaw, I .i'1:1£i V't.i1éLt._"t}fi;:1 mati€,____i;;1 as Ililiiilh as, the trial court has
«the Commis5ianer’s :r€p0r'{. which was
ébtfiizxéé suit filed by the dfiffiildalfli, but in the
instant’ }suit., :10 such C0mmissio11er’s rseport W88
A ‘ _ ‘ $§fiaj.:1@d. E§e(:2:::I1{i1}?, the iicenca produced by the
§ )fiEaiz1tiff’ as per EX.P4 3150 irzdicates that the yiaintiff
was pennitfied to put up construction in her pmpertjfg.
Hewevez’, the ma for the courts beiow to dismiss
the claim Of the p1aiI1tifi’is 011 acceunt, of the ;j;1ai1″1t.iff
not beiflg able to estabiish the axact n1eas11rgz1;i~::j§I.._V’
towards the east,-‘west direction. The lO’W€1′ _
court has 3180 obsfirved that: 3f.h€;1IIf3§iSL11ff§Ii}ETi§L’.dtivgi}.§L
to have hem} 38′ easbwesf; aizd ” fi0_1″¥;h§’::{>’i:§f11}::t_’
xazhczreas the p1ai1″1_§:ifi” has tfiqiizgg up”‘~§’:ef:’é’..vtE’:$f:*–c::;1,ti,’i;
with the sianci that kggr sit¢…ni€:aSu;’es é:2afi$.t_–;w§~:§3t 4i)’
and r10:*i’.h.–S01.1’£h 30′.
vf{;€:w of: tfi¢””ab€>’wf;é”?)’bsr::Ivatio11s Qf ‘£11116
1013563′ apfgeliaté .€iz3_.1;rt.’»– afr1d i1″1{:..d€ifects pomted out, in
my vi€.zs?r5:1′ appziliate C(.}LlI’ii to Cad far the 1*epm”*t; of the
C€3i}i1fl1iSSi.OI1f;I’ to ascertain as to the exam
%
M
r11easure::1e:I1i.i (if the p1aér1’d.ff’s property and that of
the daferldaxit. This wouid resoive the COI”1f11Si{}I”;V_:
regards the measurement of the suit pmpar1:3*–.§V__ ‘
6. Far the aforesaid rezfisoris,’ f¥&’:’§._’E}’1()’i1.§V’gg”)’1fi’gf
into the merits of the cas€,:I a;131 {hf £233 \:i<=:9§. the V
judg11r3r1t. cf the lawex' a1'3p<:1léni;:;_€:;a:1rt VV'€V;£"ia.1
smart cannot ha 15¢}: of
Commissimxarfi ;'ep0rf!;._ the instant
case 311$ ag has arisen
for lappea}, I dean} it
};31'c)p<3;§'v-,':0 "$0 the triai court.
_i;1 Vi'(::5jL§-ii.A,A*–,_t»;}*}¢:i'»LV appeal is aflawfid and the
_§s.;'s;i§i11:3:fi:;:. gf t§ie"':::;i1rt.s below are set aside and the
'ijaxniétted to thfi trial mart ta call fer the
E")-{;::1migsié::1ér's repefi: as regards the exact
;1:€aSig,1jj?§:n1eI}t of the p1a.iI1tiff's pmperty and that of
ih::rs;1af&:"2cis.:1t's propemzy and thareafter, after giving
VA V. epporturzity til} both sides to Inaigra their
submissimns regaxfiixag the (Z30mI3:1issi0n€:r's r€::p0:"t
whie::J::; report shall be prepared in U16 presence of the
3*
. I
parties, the trial <:<::urt shall dispose of the 1:;afié:}' ~ V.
a<:{:0r{ia11(;e with law at the earliest.
Dvr: