Loading...
Responsive image

Huchegowda vs Taluk Executive Officer on 4 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Huchegowda vs Taluk Executive Officer on 4 June, 2008
Author: V.Jagannathan
1% THE HIGH CQBRT OF xaanamnxn A? BHNGALGRE

HATED ms 'rm 4" mm or JUEBE 2098

BEFORE

mm I-IOB'E{.E rm. JESSTICE ... : 

R. 3.3. R0. 13«H."2!.'}08
awrwnsauz   

Huchngawda

Aged ahaut 63 yaars

8fc.late Sifidegawda
xathwadipura villaga
xasabahobli

Manjangud Taluk V~._ .9
Hyanre Dist:ict--571 301,f_  

(By Sri ?.Mahe5ha, Afiv¢,} v. 

AND:  é       

1. Taluk{Ex¢cutiva_G££ig¢; _
Taluk ?anchayath..=_' '
Hanjangud"Taluk'u=
wanjangud»u%. .  '~_:
Myscsa Di3fimict~4 571 301.

  " A ..... .. "

  .Bebur_G£&m Panchayath
 him-*en¢:a4=ii 'M1!-zk
 W 571 301.

  'I'!-I15 PsF'P'flP;L COMING OR 31233. ADMISSION THIS
  CERJRT DEEJIVERED THE F0[aLu0UfIfiG:--

  MPELMNT

.. .. . RESPONDEHTS

' ATflI$,3EGHLAR EECOHB APPEAL FILED Uf3.1G0 OF CFC
 mans? was 'aunmaszuw mun nxcnsn nmzn 2.4.2008 PASSED
-.f»gIH, R.A.EQ;53/Zflflfi OR THE FILE 0? THE CIVIL JUDGE
_'".{3I+?..nGH_.}e Ax-zn amrc, musmcun, msmzcssma ms APPEAL
 ._A£~z.§ .;:on§s'ra:-srxsg '3'!-IE J¥.IDI'.'MENT Ann manna nzmsn 3.9.2005
 _§'A$73EE"IN G.3.NO.9G./2095 ON THE F1333 01?' THE ADDL.
t2'IV'I;L JUBGR {3F..I}N.), umsmsun.

HAY,



 .t;he 334$.

-2...
JUDGMENT

tn 1 I t 9:.

‘F5 9 s?1a.’e”§’i’i%’é %§’;”‘B$a $35»; $.39 Efilgfizmnant
injuncticm against the raspandants was dism:£.:w__~aed by

the trial court giving risa tr: an apgaa1.VV_i’-taing

preferred by him before the lawn: agzpel1at.§¥_:”‘¢’c£¥t–t__itéén_£’i

the: said appeal also was dismissed. Th§._1$;— .}i{g,afi;:x::stA tjie

ccncurrarnt findings of facts igf

this 39-:.-«anti appeal is p::e.fa;:::_gd. A

3.. ‘F’i’§.§”‘.f_v3.£Cij1t3«VJ§j§it>35h.V»&V{:if’ fihtxatassary cietails are tn
the e.t’.€a¢:t_: “+;hatVj”;:¥ha:i filed by the plaintim
praying fa1§V._1_:ha relief by contending that

tvéggelozi-:1-z.___jtg:&. him and the defendants have

“«1egnc’;.tfv:::as~f,:1’sq{é1’A..%*.’aIr:§:ie’~–. __agJ;>el1ant:’s property for the purpose

at’ drain water to flow. As the said

HVintarf’axafi:iav’:””is in front of the hausa of the

1. thfi plaintiff sought for the relief of

4″g¢’:’x:::’:V.éaz:-stint injunmtien. The defendants, on the othar

“t :han:¥§, teak ug: the stand that the plaintiff has been

‘VA”*~..¥_§rev~entin:g them from carrying -nut tn: drainage work

and the drainage mark is being undertaken in public

prapmcty and there is no ancraachment into ‘him

¢9~/

‘ I

g:1.ai:£:tifJ’.”s area… The said pleadings led t_..v.:_>__ the

trial court framing nacasaary issues for tha.j”;$§’;<xp¢'zge

of the raliaf sought far by the plainti£.f§V.:i…;:§i§t:i–'§[jia§$9_§:1g

an the ewiclence let in by thgAA,Vgart3_.'é3) v"t:ivajfI

court found that the defendant;-2.14 d:;c:..Ti'n¢t:._.'

title af the 52}.aint::i..ff.»' -.__f.7vezV*7, hi:5

, the defendants VV..t;a1;9 bean' ablag ta Shaw

that the place» waxiici is being
undertaken doas mt baigzig ,. but an
1:-he 9%?-':er£' hand; fig Based on the
said ef the plaintiff
was dismi's3%:i: 31;; *.,1s" "gvobservnd, the agnpeal

aim was appellate caurt.

4.V_ wh9§;a.:’£1 auhmission made by the

:_~”‘V1a.arn2§i§$’;’:~ {:<§un$a1AV"fc:::—-«"tha appellant. and after going

£23:-migni 'Vtt:1§*:V"'jgJt§5;a1a:nts at' bath the courts belczw, I

finziificai e§1:9r'§i5x.f Vfiéneinq cozremitted by the courts below in

:39 fafi ..a7s«:, 'éiie defendants contending that the drain

'iig hing done in a public place am: the lawn:

._«:i*g's':zL.i:.–*Vt:"' has com to the conclusion that the galli,

i plaintiff claims as his awn, is zxathing but a

iiijaublic ylacn situated in front of the. harms at the

plaintiff and alang the same lama, there are other

.2»-

!».I

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information