"1
1191 THE HIGH COURT OF KARKATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1'77" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009
BEFORE
THE H0!\'£'BLE 1\m..:I:s*r1cE 3.3. PATIL »' V'
wan' PETITEON No. 18233 I gooé £GM+{i§»c3:VATVV.: ' .
BETWEEN:
{inure}: of Immaculate C0I1<:«s:pt:i0n
Caf Urva Mangaiore, -
A Religiaus and Charitable
Ixxstitution 'by its Parish Priest, _ _
Adxxxinisflator Rev. Fr. Andrew Lcsfiiak "_
Aged about 60 ytizars, ' ~ 5 . . " 2. V '
S./0 David Lewis,
R/at. Urva Church, V VV -' ..
Mangalore. ' ' ' - _ ~ PETITIONER
(By s:1.B,V?. 1:{:is1:§::;,
Arm: ' V '
Mrs" Margaretéfioéaz': V
Adu1t,_{ V
" 1.1319 Ms. gggsétph ma, -------- ~ "
gR{at._'2j1/23"}',_'La._dj.y Hill,
Chiiimbi, AV *
RESPONDENT
'*"k"3¢'
A Pctiiion is ffled under Articles 226 5:. 227 of the
Cégfisfimfion of India praying 1:0 quash the Order dated
" T1?i--.1'1...2{)06, ya.-ssseé on LA. no.4, fileé under Order SIV Rule {5}
'~1'--]W S€C. 15} Sf CFC, 1938 in 0.8. N0.198['.7l0{}4 on '£116: filti Of H
Aédi. Civil Judge (Sr. Dm.) Mangalore in A1:m@x11:re--A.
This Patitien amazing an for Preliminary fiearting 'B' Group,
this day', the Court made ézhe followingw
/-
ORDER
3.. iihaflenge in this wrii petition is to the Grder dateé
14.11.2006 passed by the court below dismissing IA .I1(}7;”.’% :f1}t3(?1
by tha pcfitiener httrein.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff before the ma} I¥. 1f1a.§; 536$ _
fhfi suit O.S.No.198/2004 seeking a
to deliver vacant possession of thf: B si:i1e’a:11:1€: p1fe;:1jiscs wi£i1.iI:’–.
the time to be fixed by the coufi ‘;22z.1:Vii~.f0r (.>fi:¢f’rfii}ief§§1.:ig1é1fidin.g VV
mcsm: pmfits.
3, Defeiidafiit’ gtatemcnt contending that
the is’1’aca*{v’vi;.’i§§§>:.,§1i)§€§12§{t: éwner 0f the plaint A schedule
yxnpsrgz and” t1j3.ét_13:t§ iéa cagfswner of the same. The defendant
4__1§1as ~;19I1tt2n1*1’€E–r:fi(:1v_th:;2t the asseriicns made by ‘(“116 plainiéif
‘–.::g_méj pérmgtted the dcfczndant to occupy the pzajm B
sCLj’§1e<ii§.1:: a licensee was false and that the glaiat B
V fizcfnedéiie was not in her occupation by virtue of the
H " agfeeggantvvéfizxtered ixzto between the piaintifi' and the détftmdant.
oh these pletadirzgs, the trig} Court has fmmeé SEIVEIEI
T géifillege
;«;\
4. The gri€Va.11c’:::=: 0f the pcititioner is that some of th6; i:.~34§u§:s
framad were quite unnecessaxy and did not
considemtion at all} in the suit. ‘F}:3Lexefo1fe:*,,—-»..h1:1}f:.VV
applicatien ta 110.4 seeking to recast H16 “e::me:._z’1Vc«l.¢tA-i.t(1.’
that the issue as to whether t.{1e.;.21,_-a_:3’11t3’fiV’._ié’ “the a1”;’§1t311§.t1é otgrzier L.
at the piairlt A scheduie pmp:ertyjV’Vt’v;?T§Vt1et1;cr Vtumves
that the defendant is in of schedule
property as a Iiceaseeg .:Vv§1§’t3VCS that it has
iawfifliy t$I:tninated”‘t:;t1:ie the defendant in
{aspect of B totally tmnecessaxy.
The recasting tht: issue by
framiag zhvétfgfiosemig E: ” V
“W’_}_2e§hef”~.thé piigxirtiijif the aewnear ef the plain: B
fmizhgdzzle _
.3133 the Cotlrt below to delete issue nos. 1, 2 8:.
t V’ 3 as.’ above. The court beiow has mjectad this
% T 2. _ ‘ aégzplicatiant} ‘
x _®’unse1 appearing for ths petitionfir taldng me through
V’ impugned order, giaint and written statement submits that
the (302111 below has acted without apglyiug its mind. t0 the
grfievatzca made by the plaintjfi’–petitioI1er harczin.
/lfiy.
6. Having heard the Iearmtd (fiounsel for the pefitiener anal
on careful consideration of the matmiajs 03:1 mcord, I find much
fame in that centsntion urged by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
7, The re§§.ef sought 1111 the plaint is for d£;}._i_.x%E:1iy
possession eff schedule B premises.
propefly which is described in is
matter of the suit. Possession s<}t:gh'tf0r by only V
in resgect of B schtdulc vp:*§:mis¢Vs"'w§f:ic 1i";i._$ bf AV' schedule
property. Though the the plain': that A
sch€:d113€:1.£Vp;*op:§éA:*i;=;%._–v :;:A:fi!}'StT.7~§1,:V?;7i"§¢.':f.'1_'§7.f)1iK2'I1eE:*d by the piaintrifl', in the
Eight of the"::;_:1i.e-.f :1~1a£%i§ which is Only with reference to
B scheduls §x}£a.3 i.1nnecessa1y for the court below to
f§"£9JI'1€ "E'1,;.1 isssuigto iiiéxéffieczt as to Whether the piaintifi" provcci
fhaf' *i}ie.:v%§.Wner of A schedule property. This issue
1equL".€§$ tovbéi L'1':*-gcfiast. In the light of the aontmversy raises} with
:..«.._'rt:.gard to" B schsduif: property, the oniy proper issue that is
to bf': framed is, "whfithar the piaiutiff pmves that he is
§0Wn€:r of B schaduie pmpflrty and anfitled for Vacant
kpossessien of the 53333.6-:?"
%.
8. In so far as the other two issues are cex).<:e:z*ned–"wfi1i<:i1
relate to the burden on the plainfiff to prove as to
ziefendant is in pcermissive possassion of B sch<=:d11'i¥=::.."p:0p:éI'x1§;7
a licensee 311:1 whether the plaintiff ];rrt5iIed.t;1;2;t V'
terrainated the license gmnteé to the
schstdule pmyerty, as the }3]ainiiif_:éi:3_A;aveiied 1:; that" V
the defendant was in permigsive :g:a*3§*§£%;::*:$i(2:; as' and that
it has terminated the licefiséié Jjlotzice, the court
below has per$u;ad.§t1v__itse§fV'té:3 Thezmfore, it
cannot bs _be1o€5:'v"11f§V§fi"V;:mmittefi apparent
iiiegality” warr311!: interference in
exercise ziif wzzii ., ‘
9. “I’}:1<}ugh 'tb$ Vie3;1}:ze€i_ Cc-{lass} for the petitiomzr contends by
'V tg9.:{)r{§.er )é¥V."'{7\"'fl}eS 1 65 2 of CFC that when 3 material
Law is 3_ff1I'Il1€d by (me panty and denied by
1:he'<:t},fi€:r s;k1;€}:A:;_i_.:%,}:be taken; as a basis for fizamimg the issues ané
'such facts alleged and denied must have bearing on
ta) Sue or with regard to the right: fjf defence, I do not
in the instant caste that tha C{)'£1I'1Z beiow has in any manner
'w€cv3'mmii£ed any illegality in flaming thfi issues pertaiuing to the
terminafimz of license cf the dszfttnciani, as the basis of the claim
of £316: plaintiff is that the fiefendant was inducted as licensee
V