1
IN1%flEHHHICOURT(fi?KARNNDflfl&KTBANGALQRE=
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY 01:' NOVEMBER _
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE _su3_;xAsri"13;'
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL"-NO;22$1/20()5:"V
C/W .. _
REGULAR FIRST A1°PEAL'~n;o. 1291v/goes IENJE
HVRFAJWIZZ4/2005:
BETWEEN '
SMTAROGYA _ _ "
AGED ABOUT-69"YEA;E;s, '
W/O. LATE SR1, T, ER0KLaPEp.A,.. "
R/AT #1
ST. THOR/{AS TC')";V1\L_& ' _
BAN(}ALC}RE--~560 08.4, ' «
REPRESENTED BY
GPA HOLDEE " _ ' _ "
MRS. MARGARET PUSHPA. " APPELLANT
" " £BYv-if/SA;-EV.K.~z~g,ARAYANA', J. SARASWATHI. B.R. BABU &
,",N.ENWANJflflWAR,ADVSJ
HVANDV
" " f31\/ET. ,s.p. IVIEENA.
_ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
' "N/"Q'.'»LA'TE SR1. S. PRANMALLY,
_ "R'/AZ'; #311/A, KAMMANAHALLI, --
E j {ACHARAKANAHALLI DHAKLE,
"KASABA HOBLI,
W/O.'---LATE SR1; S. PRANMALLY,
. jg . __KAOHA.RA;:ANA.I»1ALLI DHAKLE.
* IQXSABA HOBLI. ST. THOMAS TOWN.
BAj=J.GA1;ORF: - 560 084. RESPONDENT
” ..__ wff3Y?SMT. N. ST»1ASI-mm-u.A FOR
–« ” M /S. V. CHANIJRAPPA 8.: ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)
ST. THOMAS TOWN.
BANGALORE — 560 084. RESPONBE_NI’
{BY SMT. N. SI-IASHIKALA FOR A T” j V
M / S. V. CHANDRAPPA <31 ASSOCIATES. .ADV_Sf} _ V.
THIS RFA IS FILE1) UNDER SL'*CTION596VR"/W ORDER ';
41 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUI)GM_EN:r"«.SjA'ND–._ 'OI;_cR.¥+;E'
DT.30.11.04 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1O4'92/98'ON-THE FIL:+:._OT<i
THE XIH ADDL. CITY O1v11.,..J_uI)OE,, 'MAYO.-$:A1,L UNIT.
BANGALORE. CCH No.22, 'O_I_S~M1SS1NO .T'H};~.: "FOR'-
PERMANENTINJUNCTION.
IN RFA N0.1291/2008:
BETWEEN ”
SMT. AROKYA..–;x/1ARY….-;. ~
AGED ABOUT SQYEARS,» ‘
W/O. LAT13:1_SRI…T’. A1;;Or~:1A13PA,”
R/AT #1:”9, KAAr;MANiAH.A1;L,1′.
ST. THOMAS ‘i’OWN;’w-_. ” _ ” ._ ‘ –
BANGALO’RE~560 .084}; _ ‘ __ .. , … APPELLANT
[BY M /S. K. N–ARAYA[NA;–._D;~~-ARUN KUMAR, ADVS.)
é>1″sd;f;«(S.VP.~-§(1″E§vENA.,
AO12D”ASOUTjY£s:ARS.
‘R/AT #3 T I /A,’ KAMMANAHALL1,
7
iieense. The defendaI1t has also filed O.S.N0.i739;/.__i998
and the said suit is pending adjudication. It is
the defendant tried to interfere with the possessivenvvot
piaintiff in respect of the suit:”s’ei*1eri_ti-ie .; on
14.4.1998 and 15.4.1998 and as 9999.9 the]piain’titt’~4′.9VasP.L
constrained to file suit for perrnvanerit. injL1nt:tic;n..°,
6. Defendant V it fiied written
statement interalia vpailegirigé latfipassage to an
extent of 6 feet property as per
the saIe__ ‘ and sketch
appended to “wh’1’eh shows an extent of 6 ft.
passage on soijtheifn The said property is said to
the V”PV1a_in_tiff has no right to obstruct the
‘=i_ngress and.pagAgress to use the said passage and alleged
thai;At:i*2e suit.”p:isAI=n1iseonceived and liable to be dismissed.
On the the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the
fqiidWin.g 4H’issues in O.S.N0. 10492/1992 as under:
‘?ei=.ié.’»~
~v*(”
£0
Pushpa. was examined as DW.l and the p1e1_i1it:itft..Ei_g3rein
got examined PWs.1 to 3. Exs.P.1 to 13.10
D. 10 were marked in the said suit.
9. Though the Triai CoL1:1:t. :”‘sti’its
separately, but the evidence Fn”b_Vot,h”the s.L1it:S:”is._’ide.ntiea1.
The Trial Court beiovxr by the
defendant in O.S.No. p] the suit in
OS.No. 10492/199s,_% It ‘Jjudgment and
decrees, in the other
case has filed
10. WSri. Narayfan’a,.t_””I’earned counsel appearing for
the appeliantf sfubrnittedffftfthat plaintiff is the wife of
ai*;ri_ herflmhnsband had purchased the suit
in the year 1945 as per Ex.P.2.
Howevel’. husband sold northern portion of the
-. ~pr’operty in “favour of T .Mar1’appa his brother as per Ex.P.3.
4″Whaft.*-is sold to his brother as per Ex.P.3 is an area
ff.:”I’i}«*Ei£ii:~”aL1I’i11′{-_§ 70 ft: X 26 ft. bounded on the East by
«-
13
illegal claim on the southern side on the basis of _w_ror1g
description of southern boundary in her sale
to interfere with the plaintiffs property. V’
without appreCiat1ng_this evidence . on . ye-coi’dl aé(li11t1iar’yr’ if V
to the recitals in Ex.P.3 has er1~o1ieo1i.s_lyll
of the defendant and also the”
plaintiffs suit.
11. Learned counsel defendant
submitted examined as
DW.2. In stated that plaintiffs
husbandapis his brother. They constituted
undividedljoint the plaintiff’ s husband
Vwas selder” of the family, property was
‘lv.Vpn1’ehlase:d.lAin’ his nanie in the year 1945 and towards the
sl9i_a_re.__of “DVl_r’v.._2,’~:;a’Vsaile deed was exeeut.ed in his favour on
V .27.l.’iI”19’i?’:1..'”;Fhe1’e is a passage on the soutlierri side of
if property and there is no other way to enter into his
The property was divided keeping the passage in
‘fibetweezi both the properties i.e., on the northern side of
%&
1
K’!
21
dt.30..11.2004 on the file of XIII Add}. City Civil _«J__L1dg€:.
Bangalore stands affirmed. Parties to bear their own
At this junctu1’e._ learned counsel for theplainiiiiéxibiriits ._
that the Trial Court has granted g.r11ar1’Ci’aivo”ry ‘1iri}iii1r;tiVo’ii
0.8.1739/1998 and the plaintiff i.1’1i1o”to’*g»
remove the obstruction. ThOL1’g’}’i:VV..”!.€a1’ri€Ci. ‘(iOLiflSé:I;: the
defendant objected. oo11f3’i:”1orin_ggi'”thojéaahio, piliairiitiffvé is given
fifteen days time to remoxréihthf: by {he
Trial Court in xiulaintiff shall file
affidavit of ,obstrL1ctior1 within two
Weeks. —- _
SM?”
iaaga