_ 1 ..
IN THE HIGi-i comm as KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE
mcrea THIS THE 26"' my 09 AUGUST, 2309
BEFORE
THE HOMBLE MR.Jus"rICE §<.{\}.KESHA'...}$§.!A'éAYAN:A*«V.
REGULAR SECONQ APP§;*_A1_l,_l_§IQ;v6"29.: OF 'k I
BETWEEN:
1 A R KR1sHNAMuRTHY*kA§%i'%
s/0 A.M.RAMA1Az~4 .
AGED ABOUTS3 YEMS %
~"R}'ATi;HIG¥-§'<30;'5,2*-
¥<ALLAHAi__'LI 2"" PHASE
'.\fI?\.i€)B. NAGA'R..H-UL3CO COLONY
SH4IMOGA¥'5?".7 '2Q1. AP?ELLAN"¥'
my Sri : ADVOCATE)
%% kf m\m1%:%«.%%
. zzbaasfiesn
S/OlfF.v.vrrrAL RAG
* Fé/AT {.163 No.1 KALiJ3«HALLI
'VINOBHANAGAR HUDCO comrszv
S§-iiMGGA-=S}"? 201.
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
@
R1'-UENDRANAGAR
SHIMOGA DEVISION
SHIMOGA-5?? 201. REsP :N murs Q L '
THIS RSA IS FILED u/5%. 1%j()o:'c>*F%%%cr~i<: ;£§:'sA:'NST %
THE JUDGEMENT & QECREEA am;2'::r,9A.2ec:%6%% IN
R.A.NO.24/2004 ON FILE .OfSTHE"IVA9m..C1;\iI'L 3UDG£*
(SR.DVN.) & CJM,SHIMOG£x,.D1SMISSI!$1G': me APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING, % THEkA%2£.J't3GEME;-:T' -ANE) DEGREE
DATED 25.3.2004 ezxssep Ina as, NO.298/1998 ON
THE FILE OF THE I1"AD{3.x;';»CI\fIL.fJL}DGE (JR.DVN) &
3MFC, SHIMQGA.
'mxs %c:c3ré1%I%r§hG%L%'¢:ir~:kL Fm Aomssxom "mrs
DAY, 'n--i t-:4 C§3U'RTf__DEL;VE3ED'3HE FOLLOWING:-
is by the pfaintiff in
O.S..vNo.29'3[19.'E38 *oh"" the fiie of II Additionai cm:
" . A Jfiége%,% (J*u;f:éo:9V tfiiiiééon), Shimega.
,2.' appeiiant-plaintiff filea aforesaid suit far
..reuiit§f'V--~:"of permanent injunction and mandatory
A' "A. ir:j-finctéan. The case of the piaintiff was that he is
" *' the owner of site bearing i\3o.CS 1/A at i<.H.E. Coiony,
&
' h"ei'_has'VrieAvmanner of right, titie or interest
.A'$athe. Therefore, the 3.5' defendant is
mmavei the feundatien put up by him en the said open
""..s3aiA:e and aise he sheuid be restrained from petting
' " "tsp any constructien thereon. The piaintiff aiso sought
situated at Keiiahaiii, 3 Phase, Shimoga, measmring
in all 405 meters, having
'32:
same from the 2"" respondent.-:i<éar"riata5<.a~4 Hepisin_g *
Beard and that he is in iawfuilipvossessien
and that to the North wtherej’v_:is;~fa””strip of’,
open space measuring 2 E2″?§;’:!Sie.rth–SeuthA”and 10ft.
East-West and beyroixi :33′ open space
towards Nertii,VL:ij’Hoi§ses’.:’beari’i§g 1 to 5 are
situavteiii}; is the aiiottee ef LIG
i\io.1Efrem §(arfiata’ika.::i¥*iie~using Board has iiiegaiiy put
up_a, Lfos.irici_atia%1 Aanithe said strip of open space,
required-.te:be directed by a mandatery injunction to
g
the 15′ defendant. The triai Court on
“‘._2iese¥3’Sfn»ent”‘””of ore: and documentary evidence
A’ reetreiined the 15* defendant from interfering with the
AA’;p’ie§ntiff’s peecefui possession and enjoyment of the
V suit scheduie property narneiy CS 1/A owned by the
.. 4 ..
fer permanent injunctien restraining the defendants
from interfering with the peaceful possessienj and
enjoyment of the property owned by nirn ”
3. Respondent No.1 ‘ T
denying the case of theV.pieint’iAfE_’V_”‘The
in its written statement tnatiit retained
any right over 1. pgeeefiy after
aiiotment eftne site-eh.jftjeittfitfi-A..VihAé’3/piaint§i’f and the
defendant” 2″” defendant did net claim
any interest’exierjtneiecrip :31’ open space stated to be
existing hetnfeein the property of the plaintiff and the
decreed”the suit impart against the 1″ defendant and
M
v_i2«-aegreent ve’f’ét§e_1«Ciourts below the appeliant–piaintiF§ is
‘ ;f*befzJ:_;feti¢iijsv Court in this second appeal.
.. epr3’e~*a}ring for the appeiierzt and perused the jiudgment
‘ “oi’:the Courts beiow. Having heard the ieamed ceunsei
T and on perusai of the Judgment of the Courts beiow
-5-
plaintiff. The suit against the 2″” defendant to
be dismissed. The prayer of fur
mandatory injunction to remove the té
have been put up by the
open space was rejectee,
decree rejecting tine prayer-V..for._Vn1ae’dVatoAr~,rEinjunction,
the appellant-piein’tzii{‘f.Afiiieifi’Jeéoeeeibefore the lower
appellate CZi:2i,;_rt. “” eeeeiiate Court on
reasseeeirneeeiaief eeetenrientary evidence on
reci;rd._eoieetirred_with~–.the kidgment of the trial Court
and Aci–ts’,_4n1ivsS;eci”” eV.t¥1e:’_”_.»eV’ai:3peai. It is against these
have heard Sri S.V.Prakash, ieameci counsel
»A ;feit;e purchased from K.H.B. The attempt on
H * Ehe efI=.tVhe pfaintiffnappears :9 be te stake claim to
‘T;:’rep»erty. fieving regere {:9 the facts 8; circumstances
of the case and the very case pleaded by the piaintiff,
has shown the northern boundary of his pregerty as
house Ne.¥_EG 1 to 5. If reaéiy there was_4vaV_V’:’e§ré.p of
open space an the Northern side of
and the property owned by _the__;”*’
Ne.1, was to the North of
then the northern bouficsery of the.VVATp.§ai’nFiffr:{::,E3ouid
have been that strieef epe’heS;»e:’ce_ ane¥’r1et-LEG 1 to S.
From the very in the piaint
scheduie, §i.t”3Asu{;ieaLF_ thei;’:the?ej_~~£sv_.;j§: epen space to the
Neftfh cf{hep!_e’inf:éfffs…_property as sought to be made
out in categorise; terms has
ecifiiitted thafihe iv; in peseessior: ef the extent of the
certatie epen “space said ta be tying to the north of his
in my epinion, bath the Courts below have rightiy
/F
e