3. Chikkaharuvaiah,
S] 0 Sambaiah,
Dead by his LES.
{3} Shambaiah,
S/'0 iatc Chikkahazuvaiah;
Aged about 54 years;
(b) Raia,
S/0 late Chflzkaiaaruvajz-11;;
Aged about 52 years; V =
(C) Shiva, _
S/0 late C1zikka2ia'r3_1vaié2¥;1;_ , V "
Agcé about 49 yci--§:rs; . 1 3 V '
(ti) Hon_nappa,'-- " -- ' I ..
S/'0 Iatc:Ch.ii{r'kaha11;§vaiéh;. ____ H
Aged aI::7¢.,>utf45' yea:'s;= _V "
A11areV..re£=ié1ing *
1;¢:sa:;:g:;kop§:a1u;Q-
£)eva!apm"a...H0b1i,.MV - .,..
]f}1§:vaEapL1ra ~!7?esf, __ V. "
Nagamanga.1a'TaIuk.,b
Manciyja I3ist;r:ict_-w 555.2%': 432. .. RESPOHDENT8
{Byf$1;11t.LSx1ma1§g3i3,__AAEéWamy, Adv. for R-1
. V. S:nL"B.V§'Ra:ii;ag;:, Adv. for R"»2, R--3(a} to (C1))
__ _ "..,R.A.fié.Ji;68/Zflfié on the tug of the: Civil Judge (Sr.Qn.} 35
J:§.§F{:,, Nagamangala, aiicwing thc appeal fiittd againsi the
Jgagmg ma ijecree dated 1?.m.2905 passttd; in
_M_Q%.S.N€).97/2001 01:1 the file cf the Civii Jildgfi (Jr.Dn.) 35
JMF'C., Nagamangaia.
A ' VV is filed under Section 100 CPC agaiust the
Judgmfiiiii . éznd scams datad 39* 10.2097 passed in
3
This appeal Coming on for admission this day, the Celirt
éelivereei the fo§ewing:-
J UDGMEKT'
The 16' respondent ---- Muginingegowda
permanent _ injenctioe agaiI1s1%”Mt;f1e «_
respondents-2 ané 3. According t’c>__ éjgerme11’t§;’–~VV
suit schedule property is the wae’
81 paxfition evidenced by .5. regéétefesi kfiiyflvaéflia petra’ eiated
12.06.1923, in terms of were enjoyed
by the respee§jvee’:Vpersé§es§» fhe piaintifi, afier
the death 0?’ there was a division of
property and they are enjoying the
pre§tertiesV,V.2§*.1fiehVV’l14aee faiien to their respective shares. it is
etatesi beSe–de_e_;;«.the ‘vyavastha patra’, mutation was
aeeeyteei ‘a2z1{i;:ls:V!1_et§1a has been registered. According to him,
es*efi-.et1iei§gh ciefesrzdante had :10 right over the suit
‘V eehei’:i1;1e.api*efper’a’ee; they macie attempts ‘he interfere with
” his peseeseien and eqjeyment and alse attempted to cut and
— re#e*{7e the tamarind flee.
T ” “:2; The suit was contested by the defendants by filing the
Wfltbfifl statement Severe} pieae were raised ieeluding
$63.
4
making reference to the earlier litigating} between the
pames. Baseé on the plezadings of the parties, frria;
Judge raised the foliowing issties for censidcraiiézfiz’ :_. A4
z’) Whether the plainttjfproves is in pv:V§s3es$’i€::f«5
of the suit schedule _(§fi dc zte_’:ofj_ j
ii) Whether the plaint{if}”-.___pr0t)’e$ tha”£; ‘
interference from the Boy’ “peaceful
enjoyment of suit §cize<;?i1'iev;::§itoj:i(zr;yP «' V4
iii) Whether the plaintifl’ injunction
as pmyesiéfn-thefiplqffigi? ‘ ” I
iv} Ta:#ii;2er’£é3r”;.–3.~z:a”:::-ggze?
:3. Fiaintifi” ga£’:%:;a1fse1§”‘e;:amined as P.W.1 and examined
0:13 5Mayar;fia».,§§.s F’or the ciefendants, defendant N32
. . ” aé appreciating the evidence on record
i&:<it.h ' zicf%fe':'3:"e;:f1<::(i:,_i~~ t0 the rival contentiens, the suit was
dis:nis§§2é ?33%T the laarized Triai Judge. Aggrieved by this
giismissfifi. of the suit, tha plaifltifi praferred an apwai in the
Appellate Court. {:3 the First Appellate {1eurt, I.A.N0.1
..V_§=§'as filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CFC ta produce additional
evidémce. The Lower Appeiiate (301111; raised the; faiiawing
K
./
points far its consideration:
7
izzterfc-Bring with the possession of the piaintiff ever title suit
pmperty. Qefendant contested the suit. On an evéitlafien
of oral and daecizmantary evidence adduced
the suit was decreed. Defendant prefe:’1″ed_a:§V_A£ipp駧i1;, question of adverse
VvpassesVs§5:iV:’ jT;g5ze}{::z:ed% by the defendant. The
a4g§pé’I£at:é !r§%i&’,,,}&;’1Tsdiction to reverse or affimt
of trial Court. First appeal is a
” zg:@£u¢_zbleA’§ig%:::–0f the parties and zmiess restricted
§c%:1:,__ the whole case is therein epen for
_ ‘ré}L.22 afifi§:”b0th on questions cffact {md law. The
of time appetfate Court m,ust, therefore,
. rgfiea its consciaus applicafier: of mind, and
V A’ ‘ récord findings supgyortea’ by reasarzs, on am the
issues arising (dong with the eantenti-tans put ferth,
and prasseci by the parties for decision of the
appellate Court. The task of an appeflate Ceurt
ajffirming the f’inciz’ng.$ of the trial Court is an easier
03318. The agapellate Ccrurt agreeing with the view sf
\»
=/
the trial Cfcruri need not restate the afiect cf
eyidencxz or reiterate the reasons given by mg’ A’
court; expression sf general agreeméni’ ‘ ” .
reasons given by the Court, decision. 1 b
under appeai, would or;’:ii%ic:ti1gg
Ginjanandirti Devi :2. Bfiendfa I’§?Ztr’ik£nTT:’?-:
AIR’ 195? SC 1 124). .W’e.__’wou§B:£, ..li1cV¢ to %
sauna’ a note ef cautiofif;._ V’VExpreés.idfzT figneral
agreement urith” ¢jeco:”d”éd the
judgment under he a device or
aanwuflage_ adopted :by Court fer
shirking” writing a
jmdgfliéfi’— “fjppellate Court must
V prfnmples. Firstly, the
findini§S?»%’._–(~;f___’ on oonflicting evidence
cfiuiéed Vat ..-ciourt must weigh with the
appu飣{/itea ” rrfiirese when the findings are
E-eased V._::2:»fV’a£ evidence recorded by the same
V. Judge wha authors the judgment. This
@5983 not mean that when an appeal Eies
” 0ré’ appeliate Court is not competent to
rezgmé :1 ffrtdfing of fact arrived at by the trial
fisaige. As a matter of law if the appraiaai of the
V evidence by the trial Court sufiezs frem :2 materiai
H irregularity car is based on irgadmissibie evifience
0?’ an eergjectures and surmises, the appeila/te
Court is entitled ts interfere with the finding offact
(See Mctdhusudczrz Bus V. Smtflarayanf Bax; AIR
5
./r’
11
Judge. In the circumstances, stibstanfial question 0f.~}asv is
answemfi ii}. the afirmative anfi it is held that
judgment sufilars frezn I1on~app1i<:ai:ioI1 of
facts and the iaw, by the learned Ap§}éfiate"Jj'udg§.ATV'V:v
In the result, fihe s€:cai1c1__ ig ;
jucigment under challenge is a.$_idet.. 1}x1atter is
remitted back to the time appeal
afresh, both on facts ami. .Lii1j1.1a§%§;%’ View the ratio
laid down b§f_VCc3_1ii:1: ‘.§:i;::Vvt§.é锑c’§<i$cision referred to
supra. Ali are left open for
co:1si(:1.e3'éti(.§«v1";A1AAb;§* Sizzce the appeai is
{if the ytE'!'Ae&'3 1'__ 42{)i}6,._. the Case Flow Managfiment
Rules ;fi'21med' ¥3j;' j:1E1iS Céuifi, in order to enahle the Appellate
Ce1;gi"t of the appeai, the parties are
'mfere the First Appellate Court on
jéafzd receive: fmrther Grderfi from the §G'W6I'
It is mafia clear that, any 0b$fii"€'£iti€)I1S
ifia'-:13 this judgment, being @1113? limited for the purpcse ccf
éfigiggigu an the substantial questiszm 61' Law under
« (:GI1Si(1€I'€i'Ci{§}I'1, shali not be treated as an expression of
E
/,
12
Qpinian on the merits cf the matter, wlilich is now required
to be decided by the Appellate Court.
9318