IN 111:: men coumr on KARIATAKA AT Deaf W5» "1-25'hdavof -="' 4 uvwsbaoa I-I-5 I I run uorrnm mmqusirzcfl H Ic'ur«m.L%: it; A R.S.A. No. of §c5[ % BET"'EEN: Smt. Bhaya1n1_n'a__ : H - ' Wife ofSIi Aged about.-=1544yég1*s 'V . R,l;«1_t (}eI;t.ga.;1_a5a-.11;-zfilli . ' ' Honalcm}: 51;. Nag9.31=;9.ng&!a?Taluk '=---- 571' 432 .. .;'-'ap'pe}}aiit ' (By Efiinjshothama Ran, Advocate) 1 " :-3;J_n_of._SrL M-l_.I:I_r--'---u' C..w..a " T "M'i3"'?5"w * A P3iJé?i'j_R£iinesh 535959?' :3 H residing at f Honakerc Hobli Naga_m_:_=-.1r1ga_!a Taluk Mandya District -- 57 1 001 Respondents
(By Sri Mahantesh S. Hosamath, Advocate) I
V
Is)
This RSA filed under section 100 of ‘age;i.1’1st« the
judgment and deem dated 13=4=eeoe
No.72_l2003 on the file of the Additional Civil__Judge” (Sr.Dn.’)«,
and C-Jfvi, iviendya, ciieuiiseing the appeaiyaud the
judgment and dec-tee dated f10″-7″~’.20Q3 , ‘DST
No.93/1999 on the file of Judge’ i”-{5J12;Dn.),”‘–
Nagamangala. «. This RSA coming on 1'.-!._.Vdn®a"_i___n' Coi.'.'_i.. delivered the following: i ' ' This is" against a concurmnt
finding rec§on2e:3″i”by. tfie’i’,o:cbm}eg”2gg:¢w that :11… p.a_’..I1ti..- 119….
fi”1erefo:e# .6}-‘c: j;o..a decree of injunction. ‘But she
shall notipose for the performance of pooja in
” = Bofedigtiare Te1iip1e..smd its land by the public.
2; the purpose of oonvenienee, the parties are
to es they referred to in the original suit.
3. The case of the plaint;ii”fis th,_t, m_ l_Je.;’i._g $.-3′: No: 1
}’l’I”1a.K’ff’. iiobii, Nagamangaia “i”a1uic, belongs to her. it is her
t.,/
U-3
ancestral property. At a palfifion the said
to the share of her husband. Katha was
of her husband. i After his deatl:1″lEat]:a&_ irrasiii.
name and she is in possession —
She has raised ragi an.– ot11._.;–..,.!’1″mnen. ;§e.e;.dan*.s~–I.-5;; ham no
at
trying to interfere ihe._pes’aesei;gz1;.efVthe piaintirr;
4. summons entered
It was contended-
that property -belonged to Byreowda. He
had sons it Krishnegovwda (husband of
Mariyappa. There is a Boredavara
«’.I’e.:cp1_.V the ._-._.ed_a1e pmperty e….s!._1.ng …,… ……
‘i’empie~ it piaini:’:r”i’s husband and bmthers have not
xpa1*litioV_ri’ed ‘the property. The plaintiff or ancestor of her
‘ were not in possession and enjoyment of the suit
_ ‘schedule property. The schedule land is not fit for cultivation
_ as the same is used -for public purpose of the temple. The _
|/
defendants have common right. and i!1tBl’BStx”$’llit
schedule property and temple. Hence,
dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial CJ_I_1r*t -oI.”.rV._is..n.e”:=:. was
to P3. fiefendant examifizled d’T’hey did not produce
any doctlmentsf H
“oonsidemfion of the aforesaid oral
and ‘ on record held that Ex.P1-the
mutation. reg1’ster,V certified copy of the order passed
by _Assistan_tf’C’oni:missioner, Pandavapura, Ex. P3-RTCE ibr
the 1998-99 shows tha- ..h.. n…….’-=-1’ntL.. is nae owner in
‘1
~the suit sohediir’ “rt.-‘per-‘”*. The is not.
injunction against the eowowners. Defendants are
totai ” strangers. Ex.D4 produced by the defendants show
Temple is situated in property No. 133 measuring
iO0′ X 100’ and. therefore, it is not situated -in the 11 guntas
belonging to the plainttiff. Therefore. it. held the p1aJ’nfifi’Iis
|’/
. _ –
Uh
entitled to the decree of injunction in Iespect of
from using Boxedavara Temple and its way.
interest. It also directed the plai11t:ifi’*n.ot
for the performance of pooja itzsland ‘
by the public.
*2. Afig-1-ieved h– the decree of the
Court, the The lower
Appellate Vefiihe entire evidence on
Iecordv by the trial Cfourt and
dismisseci against the said two concurrent
findiJ1gs,~..the. this appeal.
~ “_l5h”ii**at.”-i*’ ‘*1 ‘eeo”‘ “hows Sy. No.1 measuring 11
Agtmtasheiongs to the However, in the said land there
A all is»:’.j’tA:’3!’o1vedava1’a Temple which is fiequented by the villagers.
(“Defendants ate total strangers to the land in question. They
are only interested in the performance of poojas in the temple
V
and their right to enter the temple through The
Courts below have held the is the of
question but she has no right dvfiaftlue. 1′.
cannot prevent people from
‘ J.”-. .1″
held that the plaintiff has
the gja in the temple. {I-edeiii “i%_!1e’:=:e as the
d*–‘”‘i1t “”ii deciee based on legal
evidence. i do siibstantial question
of law do appeal which merits
admission. is dismissed.
1o.._ eee,.eee.ee..ett dead. As the appeal itself is
dismissed on mefits, the application for eondonation of delay in
” filiiig ithe ~L_.R application, application for setting a._i..e
A a_,’af
Ck.’ T
J
3;-.53:-.t” 9;iid.~~ the applicatier. ier briefing L.Rs of the
.1. ____ …B .i;;…..A.V’._…_l___:. 1 __.__ _1__ _. 1-. . – ‘I
uct-.;I_:uscu’ !_U§’§pU.I1l.ll.’:I1l.’.l alt’. also cusmisseu.