K.C.Manchegowda And Ors vs Commr Cmc Mandya on 3 July, 2008

1

12% THE HIGH COURT GE KAENATAKA AT  1 "

mama mm term 3*" DA.Y~~£}?'   
BaEsE1~r§:  " A V V' 
'mm HOEPBLE ma. Jiisizqgcs   

THE I-103%" 31.5  Jtis*1:;':ciE"~«._;s.».,9¢';% _ Tmm

a.E,§;x¢§s$43199é;~'
Bxwteaam:       

:t. K. C.M;3!.n":r:'-.3. ';= €'--._i_.[v*.-v1'...'§.
Judge, Mandya
maney as damagas.

This Appeal is awning on §E<:i*. £.i§nai '*A1;éz.*.:;'ing' "

this day, Mmsavnarn J. Vdezivgxeg the féilawigg:

J'v9'§ %&§_ §"

This appeal   Plaintiffs
instituted 1;T21e  suj.'t"' if1: 'Jon the file of
the C:iv3,.'l._    damages cf Rs. 36
lacs 9:: Z:   City Munimxpal
CO1In¢§i.V?}.;.3.m,v    ,nV:;tructed three xaads on
theirvv'A'p§rc~p¢Vert3f'.» in Sy.No.206/5 zrtaasurizxg 1
' V Kal.],aha_l.L.:i. withaut

acxa _ =1:  'g';_Snt;a§$  village

 a£:zif 



3
an asraa 15 feet in width and 300 feet 1n4.;§e;§§=1;h and

that the mininnnn rate payable ta thua__;"§1:.ij;--. _:}..:3.

that area an the date cf fanning." 

Rs.36€¥/- per sft. p3..a..::.;§ti£:£s«; "'ha'*¥§r'eV._.:  

another suit d.eh.'£:_hat ..  
by their father againsfilharaihngghdf§£h;£§ do hot
b;:;::d them and a,.3,:§m_ :Eoxh"'1;3:.;:;g;}§V"sa;.an a«c'>?1.:" the pxrcspexty
sold under diffexgéhhh'  hy their father.
Befenéant "c§ntesh§§fl'hheL"hfi;th fihh the gxound that
defehdagrt    'E'IA.'E::x:':y",',v:/p';=}'.,(v.':'3£é!#T.:iV' any paxtian of
sy.Ng.'_2vQ'6,{$'   e.>fig§,:,a§a11y Sy.No.206/5 belong
ta ii-:._he._  plaintiffs Chahnaiah who has
sold '' =1:.he.z    vaxious parsons and that

purchasers'-. _i:1iV't221"'I1 have constructed houses leaving

  fé'-A; tnewfihaad in the yeax 1,965 and later on

 giilggg "";;$an}::hayat had formed. road. on the area left

hgf the.§{z£¥:hasexs Exam the father of the plaintiffs

ane:i"_1i£:~a1 the area included within the nmniazpaxity

  it has only ixrprcaved the same, therefore

Vfaefenaant xrequested the €:£}'£3.3:"t 'RC3 dziszniss the 5'i.3.1i.t.

<9»



E)
existing roazi. He further cmntends tftxat the
question ef praducing tha documents c1<:y;z£*;-- :Vf:<$};:T..V'a.rise

at all since the burden csf pxaving  £m;maf,:.;.¢;; ":3:

road is on the p.1,a;'.::zt;i.:Efs.. .:""'Th§I&fO11f§'; :,héVV :13-qfive$Vta""

the czmurt to ciisrniss the  "

'E. Having heaxd theV'e:%§Siz§:se3;.V'  "fie
have to consider; 1;na _...f'§1;¢»g;n§' " in this
ayyeai: . ' h .

1.

Whether the txial cofixf was justified in
disma_’.s.5ing the ef’ the plaintiffs by
_1;aé:s;.3.d§}.’xig.V1.*’.3:aL2_: nq =.rcad”‘”1s formed by the

3de£auaagt«;qn«_sy;no,2os/5 of Kallahalli
.s;i’3._3.;age?’

2 . Whether’ judgment anti &ec:1′:ee,c:£ the
1 ‘– ‘trial’-»gouri:.TA:E-aqu’ires any nrodificati-an?

8. _Af1:aé’:’:f_ 21véar5§n<;;j"'..the paxties; 33: is 391:: in

s/5 of

” frcsm them: fathezr treating it as an

amsm; property. Adxnittecily, father of the

” ” pzginfiiffs cnazmaian has sow. entire extent of 3.-04

fléi§¢;t:’es of Sy.I~I.2G6f5 of Kallahalli village by

“forming sites. Plaintiffs have also adznitted that

r°v