IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE . THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K GOvII\IDAI~2AJU~I~.U' " REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.978/20:13 ' E. BETWEEN : SR1. B.S.SIDDALINGAIAH. S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O BHAKTRAHALLI VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUKH _ j IV AA = PIN : 561 203. _..._";..;;AI'%'PELLANT (BY SR1. T.N.MAH!'.'§):Ej\fA AD§L~.FOR' V SR1. M.SIVAP_PAI'1P&__ASSTSIADVSJ "" " AND: THE SECRETARY." E' S ATTACHEDTO BHAKTRAIIALLI, I EANCIIAYATIPI; ..... I - " ;_SA'SALU_ HOBLL DODDABAI,LAPIJR«.TALUK. PIN .: 5-61; 20-3, RESPONDENT
IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
THE JUDGMENT AN DECREE DATED
_ E “‘.1T:.0-‘.12-‘.~.?.’t’y09 PASSED IN R.A.33/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE
…_E}?REESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
DODDABALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
d_,w”
CONFIRMING Ti-IE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED ;
23.03.2000 PASSED IN O.S.243/2002, ON THE FELE OF
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, [JR.DN.) AND JMEO,
DODDABALLAPUR. ‘
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADM1ss–iON: 0-
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ffjy. >
JUDGMENT . 3 ‘
Plaintiff in O.S.NO.243/20t);.2’-NOD the fife. as “‘(in}:1
Judge [Jr.Dn.} & JMFC, *D.Oddabfai’ia’}gnV’f0;.._is tnevvapfiellant
in this present appeal. ‘ V ‘ ” 9’
2. 1~s;i’efi~ed aeveording to their status
found in thevwsuit
“suit isV.filed____};)y the plaintiff is for an Order of
dpertnaneent”inj«1,in<:tiOn. It is the claim of the plaintiff
that site 124 measuring 40' X 30' situated at
Bhaktntaraigaiii village, was granted tO him, since from
djtlie Of grant he is in lawful possession Of the same.
V' further contended that defendant is trying to dig
pits in the suit property, Without any right over the
same. So, pray for an order of permanent injunction.
4. Written statement is filed by the V.
contending that grant infavour of the ‘
cancelled by Saslu Manda} Panchi’aj}ath* .an_d-:
site was allotted to MPCS Limited, lBhal<thara.haIl'i.l' it
he is not entitled for order of injlnnetion. ~. l
5. Learned Trial’ ‘ Judge; fhas: framed issues,
permitted the parties’ to V’ 1 to PW3 are
examined, Exsi;P.1V _to,P«1_lare marked. No evidence is
adduced on ..beha}f=oi’
;>_Learnedl’T1*ial”Judge has dismissed the suit
llwiltlivlleost’–v.ofl.’Rsl.3.00/~ while answering the following
issues with following reasons:
POINTS
1′) Whether the ptatnttjf proves that he
is the absolute owner and in
peaceful possession of the suit
property ?
ii) Whether the plaintiffs that
defendant is interfering with Whtsl
peaceful possession over the__§’_suit§_j—._ _
property ? ”
iii) What order or decree ?” « g_
_IiLI,\LDl.13l.Q.§
Issue No.1 : in the negative
Issue No.2 : in the negdtIjoe«
Issue No.3 : per th’efinal order
7. P13.inti_ff has…:._ in RA
No.33/2006. i;eei::§~>ned.v:}’\p;c>eiIaté:w.lj’udge” dismissed the
appeal lf»1.19.w;ving points with the
fol1omn§:”?eé$011$ A: fit ”
-f1PoIN’1s
Whether…the plaintjf proves that he is
I owner in possession and enjoyment of
schedule property ?
_A . ‘V’Vi’htether the plaintiff proves the alleged
interference ‘P
A. ,,__iii) : Whether the judgement and decree of
the Trial Court calls for interference ?
iv) What order or decree ?
FINDINc§s
Point No.1 : in the Negative
Point No.2 : in the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Afiirmatioe
Point No.4 : As per the final order. ,
Being aggrieved by the said order, M
preferred the present appeal.
8. Learned Advocate for the in ptajritihffp V V placdes VA
reliance on the zerox Copy 0f}”u.dgn1e1itt_:pasvsed by
Additional Civil Judge (Jr. fjoddaballapura
in OS No.76/ 1994′; said suit is
filed. Sp, the’tcor1tinuon’s.’___pos_session asserted by the
plaintiff of the case. So pray for
V a1I0wi1fig”‘this appealvdor atleast order for remand.
N V’ ‘vhawfuliiipossession means that the party who
_ appro_ached–th.c:;Court should show that he has entered
the progpefty with some rights and that they are in
conti.ntious enjoyment of the property.
10. After careful consideration of the reasoning
and findings of the learned Trial Judge and learned
Appellate Judge, Court holds that no material
is marked to prove iawful possession in 2 .
judgment in OS No.76/1994 is filed..,__ The”sai.d_’;vi.Vs
against villagers, not against ~’;of
schedule property. The Chval1;enge”‘ in _Vtd1ie”‘:._Wi*i.tten
statement is not substantiated,—-..§ov,-_ of the opinion
that this is not a fit caseto magi ‘present appeal.
Hence, at the itsel?f’_appe:aiV’Vis rejected.
Sd/”‘3
Iudgé