Girijashankar Patil S/O … vs Kalyanappa S/O Pampanna Jawali on 21 July, 2009

IN 'ms HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA   
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHAR\NA[}H_}"V:"'-   '

DATED THIS THE 215* 0A? <5# 3Tt;«s,.~:g,TT zooé -  T_ 

BEFORE

THE HOWBLE MR. JusncE'%akk;_N. NAG;¢.§4G:~é.Ani':,sAS

Rgeuma §§gV:3;;:g,,D_&P§§%&'%,5&  L    7§4z;7§ as

QETWEEE

GIRIJASHANKAR?.PK§3:L    
sic BHIMANG§OUD.A;~....f;7_V "    A
Asses ABOUT 63 z';EfARs;' %  t  L

KARATAG.-IV \kiTLL;A£;=E, " 

GANGAVATNITQ-633..2?.9;" :'~»---., % %

...APPELL.ANT

(BY M/S. HEGQE, %r~:'E£%ri;)=§;,c=2:::_2a 'PATEL, ADVS.)

" 2.1.} "

n<azLx:m§P#A«

 Asst: 

~%1s;£34 P:2é~2'r:3.Am&A 3AwA:.1,

sz:s:$mEss;¢ ; _!<};¥;RA"!"IGI
egguaavamz 12-533 239.

 saAm3siQm=A
 » sxs 4.1%-'GAi"»ié.$fiW9A
  mar; 54 'mags

szzusxzstsss,
i_<;ARA'3'IGI mamas

KSANGAVATHI TQ:583 229.
. Huazmeu vEEa.11PAs<HApA

S/0 VEERABHA9RA?PA,

aw



AGED 52 YEARS
EUSINESS,

KARATIGI VILLAGE
GANGAVATHI TQ:583 229.

4. SIDDAPPA s/o  
VEERABHADRAPPA HURAKA9LI,  
AGED 43 YEARS,
ausmess,    «
KARATIGI VILLAGE  "     J
GANeAvA'rmTQ:sa3 229.    ...ru;--:sp<3Noe;~rrs

(av SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR._P*.«. PAT!L_AN§}  
sax. SASAVARAJ R. MATH,' %Aov*s.% FGR 5:/9.;
R2» SERVED A      'A
R3&R4 ARE DEL.ETE?3)  _  % a ~

THI55 RSA"IS.,FILi§D UNDER SECTION 100 OF CFC AGAINST
THE 3UDGME--NT V81' *E) 'E.CREE-T__[3'--I'.'263.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NO.
2212906 ON " THE' "  it?' THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.)
GANGAVATHVI,..ALLOVv.'f_IN{5  APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND  TDECREE DT.10.3.2006 PASSED IN

_..vQ.S.N€}§-3.4/2003 "ms: 'THE FILE as "me ADDL. c:vn_
 .V 3z3a:sE{JR.eme.},,GAMGAVATHI.

 comma on ma omens '1':-as my, THE
C0tf~R.T--.VDELI%!flRE1§ THE FOLLOWING:

 M

   v  appeai is directed against the Juégment and Decree

%  ..._1':,;:§"g1j_e ij zsnzma in RA. No.22/06 passed by the cm: Judge (Sr.

 ~.. Dn.) at Gangavathi reversing the judgment of the Trial Ceurt in

0.5. No.14/G3 and decreeirzg {he suit of ptaintiff.

5



3 V .
2. Appellant is defendant No.2. First respon'deht<.i:$v.the

plaintiff. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the defentiantafriil' 4_

4 respectively before the Trial Court*;” «In ‘tot’;

convenience, the parties are referreclto

‘Trial Court.

3. Plaintiff filed Q,S. No-.—-.’.t4fa3″–»again§t*vtheitiefendants
for decree of permanent the defendants
from interfering with plaintiff’s ‘enjoyment of the
plaint schedgelaa” The ‘Vdetendant No.2entered
appearance ‘TriaiVl_T”C.oert, flied written statement inter

alia contentii.n4’§ri schedule property is not in

existent;-eg” the ‘-meaouréments and bounoarles given are

illil-‘:ti,:’:’1:vi:tie._:’ he contended that defendants are the owners

olifanid the Raichur – Gangavathi road runs in Sy.

No.292;!2. .._;On.l’:hAe basis of the pleadinga, the Triai Court framed

” ” ‘T fol3ovir%:’l§’ four issues for its consideration:

“‘* whether the plaintiff provw that, he is in lawful

in posswsion of the suit: schedule property as on the

date of the suit?

§i””§”

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves i:ne3V.:le’l’l’e§;e’d.T

interference by the defendantsj _ _v _ V 2

3. Whether the plaintiff is ent:i.i;lecl”tl£:l”

permanent injunction ag*ei:1.§t. fl1e’V’defen::d:’e.nes:.. ll

respect of the schedule 2 V’

4. What order or deCr.ee?_ ”

4. Beforeiv ‘l’l’–ia£V_ examined two
witnesses as gel: imam Exs.P1 to P15.

Defenciantevvas aw-1 to DW-3 and got
marked Exe.DJ1″ tn Def!Ailcin”—e’r§’p’reciation of the pleadings, oral

and docurnentaruy eiqidence-, tine Trial Court passed the impugned

d–ismil*eeing ltlilellletiit of plaintiff on the ground that

plVe’in_€i’fifll,neejfeilerljteeiprove and atabiish that he is in possessian

V’=~and enj.9:ymenf’_i:«.~f’lV.the plaint schedule property. Aggrievecl by

_.,ff;tbi’s-..jndgm’e,n£ of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed an apseal

Lower Appeiiete Court In RA. No.22/06. The Lewes”

‘ V’V:”A_e;§e¥l_ete Court after hearing arguments, framed the foiiowing

Atijurfee issues for its consideration:

5
“1. Whether firzcfings of the tria$ court in

14/63 is correct?

2. Whether the findings of the (earned _.tria%–:j’uvr1g’e in u

O.S.No. 14×03 calls for intertereecefr V

3. what order’? ”

5. The Lower Appeslatetcskurt oh rm-:ap;§r–ees.§t:6:i’ of tire

evidence on record passedthe i.rh’f5u.:§§ued-1udgrtie’nt”‘e|¥owing the

appeat, setting aside the’VjeA;fg’rr1’e:itTria| Court and

decreeing’t’thé’szi:€vt Hehte; this second appeal by the

second cieV”‘fehd«an’t..VV 2

6. T’rx_§s* vcdurt’AV}r:dAe..»e.”‘erder dated 9.1.09 framed the

_ _. Vfoilowinigj ‘su.bstan’tieiViehueetions of law:

.’ ;n,(_Vi) tvhether the Lower Appeiiate Ceurt erred in Saw in
1 the evidence of PW-1 who has stated

. the space measuring 20 ft. situated tewards

the eastern side of Girish Taikies beiongs to the

second defendant – appeflant herein whfle

yeveretng the 3udgment and Decree gassed by the

“me? Court?

./

reasons given by the Triai Court for its be

considered by the appellate Court. In the instan,tA4’jcevse;:’tlhe “Trial

Court, on appreciation of oral and *

that the plaintiff has failed to prove an°dAestabiish–“–.hi.’sVl poségeseiofts,

over the entire suit schedule as the pieint.
The Lower Appellate Courtwithoiit:eo’n:s§ol’erl.ng ore! evidence
of PW-1 concluded that pleititiff established his
possession over the:«.entire:A__pleiet s’ctied.u!e._.t5toperty as described
in the plaint. Lower Appellate Court is
contrary by the Supreme Court in Mudaliar’s

case. Accortfeijhgiylg .$:ifb.steetiel question of law 940.2 is

answered ‘ih..theVaff§r_n1Vetivv{e. Therefore, the impugned judgment

:’v’Vpa”ssed:”by itowver Appellate Court is liable to be set aside.

.71O’;’ this Court, during the pendency of this

pepeeel, defeedent filed two applications under order 41 Rule 2?

eeeiging preeuction ef additional documentary evidence i.e.,

ééettified extract of Form No.8/A issued by the Tahsiidar

ufiiangavathi Teluk specifying that Sy. 510.292/2 came to be

g,w«»tx

acquired for the purpose of formation of Raichur

Road. Plaintiff flied objections to these appiigsti-onsjjinvtéir

contending that 3 portion in Sy. ‘came-:to.:_’heVVeVC’o’dii*ed s’ it

for formation of Raichur Gangayathi In[.>’.si;i;§portv

contention, the eieintiff has prodoteda cisrifigetiioii by the
office of Tahsildar Gangaiiesthi that the
iand in Sy. hio.293/1 is acqioirediifoir of formation of
Raichur Gangavethi:«.i§o–ad The pieintiff

aiso further §:oi37§go’f.. -No.8 specifying that the

land in N.o’.;’.?§V3:V,’.T£.V-..ioias”‘a.§q–uii”ed for the purpose of formation

of road in qtfestiioynf’ case, piaintiff contends that

ti>eyond}gi:he~ Raichu€.V:Cv5an’gf;avathi Road, on its eastern side, the

‘Ap%iai:ntiff is situated i.e., the piaint scheduie property.

~ti?ie.Vot¥ieVr’v_v»han’d;” the defendant contends that his property in

V Sy. N’o’;292t/.2″ei<tends upto Reichur -~= Gangavatiwi Road on the

'V'rۤ:.rsstei:ri side. In View of this rive: contention, the documentary

fe.vi'ciVen€e now sought to be produced is necessary to resoive the

T "'..:réa'iicontroversy between the parties'. "Therefore, an opportunity

is to be erovided to both the parties to establish their respective

ciaims before the Trial Court with reference to the documents

./'''7'\:_,.;

,4′ 2 ,–I 3 2′:

“‘° vi,

10

(iv) The Triai Court shaii decide the mattae:r~~–é§.f¥%¥é_ s_t§’..’§’fterI

providing an opportunity to both thg’v:”p§rtiA§sVt.’3nd\

expeditiously as possibfef . , . . ”

(V) The interim order grantedaébytlthtts Ci1’sf:!:’A'<::n"
will be in force until ti1'e.;}d'ispo'.::"a!"oVf S V'