This Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the H
Civil Pmccdum, against the Judgment and '
1 1.92.2005 passed in R.A.No.104/2004 (R,%41.:4o. 13;' 511 4- _
the me of the Principal msttict & semas '
a]lowmg' the appeal mu! confirmmgf and'
Decree dated 12.02.1993 11 in' 0_:;'&vNo.498/19911
me ofthe 11 Additional Civil Judge (Jr. 133), 1:1 sofgar
as declaration of oWncrsh1p' v(:>3E'..t;;hc _s«c}haduk 'gviibpxerty
and permanent pmhibitozy aside the
same in so as declaration has no
This A9 V Jmmmt this
day, the
' is Bacon': :1 appeal <:11a}k:ng1n' g the
and £1' %%%% "dated 11.02.2005 passed in
R.A;a5..1114,'I2[e:)4"'% 31:11 No. 13/ 1993) on rm me of the
'I'un:xkur, wherein the Judgment
~ :an;1-Decree 12.02.1998 passed in O.S.No.498/1991 on
11 Additional cm Judge (Jr.Dn.), 'I\1mkur, so
" "as .it relates to the: ownership of Mango tree standing. in
Sjf;No.S[5 of Kolaiukuntc Village and situated abutting the
boundaxy ofSy.Nos.5/ 4 and 5/5 was mvcrscd.
3*}?
2. Essential facts Ewing to this appeal is that
appellants herein are the dcfcndams md the ,,
the piaintzifiin O.S.No.-498/1991 on the "
Munsifi Tumkzu, later transferred to I!
snare, Tumkur. The said suit is
that the p}ai:ntifi' is the owner of ti:¢_'"s:;it
and also for an order of 9-{her
reliefs aga311' st the herein.
The suit schedule pmpcfzrty "f land in
Sy.No.5/5 of Taluk.
3. The and the suit was partly
decreed, i.j:'.; qftiie deciamd in so far as
'éxtciit in Sy.No.5/5 and the suit of
theié' in so far as the mango tree, which
staniiigfig QR said land abutting the boundary of
~ ;Sy,_K0.5]4 is situated on the western side in between
and 5/4. The plaintifi" whose tiflc to the mango
' was standing on his land btfmg denim, preferred
in R.A.No.13/1998, which was xenumbcmd %
. R.A.No.104/2004 on the file of the District Judge, Tumkur,
M
wherein the First Appeflatc Court confirmed the "
and Decree pasfi by the Trial Court regarding
p1aintifi'over an extent of 18 gtmtas of
Kolalukunte Village. In so far as the
of the Trial Court denying fitle
mango tree standing on Sy.N9..5/5 of
land. between Sy.No.5/5 waggéand a docvw
af deciaxation of mangi; W3: was
passed in the the original
suit, who are by the
Judmcnt Appeflaiae Court reversfing
the finding bi' far as it pertains to
ownexshipicf Ieefom this Court, in cfiect the
in respece 5:' the parties are before this
"t;e.§j.¢o the said mango tree.
_ At .fime:"'of admission, after hearing the learned
{qr mg appeflants/defendants, tlfm Court admiueé
""~:i3y framing the foliowing substantial question of
W»:
1. Whether the First Appellate Court was H
in settiflg aside the finding of the «
that the defendants have a to the"*m§z1go:
use which they claim on béS1s._§1'_
which is held to be proved
the said finding in appea1".>..__u
5. Thereafier the respondent entci5&5i_V'Vappeai2;n"'e
records pertam’ mg’ to the 1 and
arguments were heard. V
6. On hearingffine» it is seen
that the given a finding
setting “Court so far as it
pertains to the”‘£it1eof’ favour of the appellants
herein. Th;ei’–efg):’c {heV qileefjion of law is answexed “m the
. suit was fifi by the respondent herein
W .c;1ecIa.rsafieon of eras of the suit schedule pmperty
appeliiant Nos. 1 and 2 herein. In am said suit, it
‘@1113; the fixst appeliant who entered ap@ran*_§.:£% and also the amptmoe oftitk: by the
~ 1 their evidence @ding fitie of the suit
with the piaintifil The evidence aim
. w _5disc1oscs that that pomssiacsn of the entire suit
pmpeny is with the plainfifi’. Undecr these
‘W
circumstances, the First Appcilatr: Court has A’
that there is no basis bx the Trial Court to hold A
second defendant] second appellant Attic L.
the said mango tree in the absence
made by the second defendant,
statement or by cntefmg thy witgzce-Q’: and
evidence in this behaif. the First
Appellate Court in ho§:1i;1g owner of
the suit schcduiq standing
thczrcin and that I dfacfiment for alleged
sale of :SCOOIid defendant and
putting the and enjoyment
of _tVhc to be not proved and giving a
the piaintifiis not cnly the wmer of
the property, i.c., the land bearing
A 13:: V11′ Lagc, and also the mmgo tree
” is just and proper for the reason that, the
1″ respondent] appellant that the second
V” in the ofiginal suit has acquired title to the mango
4′ a settlement arrived at between plaintifi’ and sccend
‘W,
defendant and the same is Induced in to writing ~
Ex.D1, which is not admissible in law, it is an c:1x3z;_:br:jVt1fi1 é”
part cf the trial Court to deny the title qf
mango tree by “”°°”Pfing the evidence ésad ‘ of snafu
defendant No. 1, the fast appel]ant’j}:z§i~u’:i;1. The
Court has rightly reversed is’ fio–
or ifizgality in the finding vdi’ :i13.c Court in
reversing the finding or gas {Le title of
the plaintiff to :1;.¢: Hence,
there is no the dcfcndanm,
which _ this findings of the First
Appellate _ étfihe appeal is dismissed,
without
Sd/-
Judge