IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K Gov1NDARAg:'_ULU.'_*,,: r.- A REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1505 _OE'. . 3 V' " BETWEEN: 1.
GANGAPPA.
GANGANARASAIAH.
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
2. NARASIMHA MURTI-IY,,_
S / O GANGAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
BOTH ARE–~R./Afr MANCRARAL KUPFE
VILLAGE, Posir, _ —
TUMKUR. TALUK Ava A V ‘-
DISTRICT 572168.’ r
{BY SR1 .s.K.\}E1\tKATAR£:1j”15Y ADV.]
Wm
AGED ABo.U’i{46 YEARS,
A . R/ATCHANNANADINNE,
‘ {MARU’rr11’:.NAGARA)
<1jUM1;UR"'– 572104.
. . APPELLANTS
. . .RESPON DENT
SR1 H.V.KUMARA SWAMY ADV. C /R}
ix)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED
26.02.2007 PASSED IN RA.NO.250 / 2006 (OLD
RA.NO.125/O2) ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACT COURT–III, TUMKUR, DISMIS_SING
THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JDUGMENI’
DECREE DATED 21.10.2002 PASSED IN OS.NO~;4-.98,/_1i’£’i.fl?
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JDUGE (cia–.D1x;;’) I-
JMFC, TUMKUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING 0NfE0’R’
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE’~:FOL_LOW1N(§: p
Defendants in s OS of the
Principal cm} Judged {;ii£;Dn’:)__ aired Tumkur are
the appellants I
2; Pa1*ties°wil1’V icereferred according to their status
in the suitfor cgonvevniencse.
‘Aftei’*hearing for some time, learned advocate
forfhthfe submit that Vendor of the plaintiff
U_ThimS;arayappa had no title to the property as what was
I Sfgrparited to Thimarayappa had already been alienated by
him. So, finding in a suit for permanent injunction
recorded by the trial Judge and the Appellate Jfzidge
requires interference and that he has placed
evidence in regard to the transaction in .i;h’e 1 ”
additional evidence.
4. Learned advocate for’-vi.th=e plaintiff that if
the suit is only for ‘goth the
Courts have concurrently ‘plaintiff is in
possession a dispute in
regard to J at liberty to move the
Court declaration of title.
For that and that the findings
recorded in this ‘case in regard to permanent injunction
lvcanriot interfered with.
advocate for the defendants contend
V. _.tiiat_. this “Court has granted status-quo order earlier to
this’ day and that needs to be continued for six months
within which he will advice his client’s to file a suit for
declaration of title.
6. In the light of the above, the apfieialv
require any admission or consideration. on -:n1e_rits.._V’l’heV’?
defendants are given libertygto filea suit for.–d.e¢lara’tionF,
of title Within a period of ‘gTi–hll then; the
plaintiff and defendants putt any
construction in the and if any
suit is filed learned Judge
shall Without being
influenced by anyfo-f the–observations in this case.
Sdl-3;
Judge
~V brnlu”