IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 11" day afhfovember , 2008
Befoxe
my HGNZBLEMR JUSYYCE H{fL£FI{4DI G 1eA2s11;:§§}f_. f ~ _
Regular Firstsippeai 1253 ,1 2095
Between: " '
K V Iéirishnamurthy, 41 yrs
SE0 late Venkatanarayanappa
£2,/a #1099,6"' Cross, SVG Nagar _ . q_
Mcodalapaiyeg Bangalere 73 u ._ ikgspzallaigt
(By Sri 1\2i\a"ageeslg Adv.)
And:
1 I}od<iéiah'scrs~«§fi;§ia.¢v..éit' 7
Cio Tizimmaiah, *Pafi:§gatapaiya.A:iam Road
Bailgfiloréfifié V V V' =
2 "vf::;%1l<étaswam3f' ~ n V
._ 1e_zfja'«# 19*' cross'Lef: side
' Eylagadi Bangalore 23 Respondents
(By srm 5; 1%’ighs&=a.«;a::§a, am for R2;
V’ Sri H M {)evag:1ru 1″jf£aj1’a, Adv. far R1)
x This” Appeal 5 filed under S96? CPC praying in Se: aside {he
_v ‘-and deem dated 22.7.2005 fin 03 3433:2091 by the XXI Aédl.
‘ ‘ ‘ « ufljiviiflludge, Bangaiare.
“i’h.is First Appeal warning ‘on for Hearing this «day, the Caurt deiivered
Hcr
the f{)§l£)Wing:
JED G;H’£’£\r’T
This appeal is by ihc piaintiif sacking to set aside
decrw passed by the XXI} Add}. City c:ivi1:’}iiage’ in os.;43§is3.s2d§17«’m{=.
22.7.2005.
According to the piaintiffi $:he.*Sz;hLcc¥z1ie’ ‘pzfiigmiy tojlené F
Appaéah, Hanumaiah, Muthaiah and gjférshsns Egre said to
have executed the genera} powerA._§>f«.at£G1§i1e§{.f’us§ée;.:V._tgf’$1ttomey in favnur
ef M Sampathwhq _:1r:j1i1r§i:’:&:=;::@cuts9,.V;ixti§e fitiwes fif attorney in favour of (me R
Shivaswaxn3_Ei.e.,’* t1§eVa;§pc§ia1§t’s. fist valuable consideratinn. The said
Shivaswamy exécufied 3 fé’g,_2’§eifeé ‘deed on 26.11999 to the agpeiizmt fa-r
_Va]uatio:)._§:0i1sideratioii and he was pui in possession. Also acem-ding to {he
1/ _ap£,:,3}]a.z1£ 32% up one square buiiciing and is in peaceful possessing of
Stating that defendants are strangssrg to the suit
‘ schedu1e’«§>ropf:rt3’. are trying to interfere with his peaeefui pcssession and
” i,”f:egij¢3ym¢n:, imaiized a suit for pcrmanent injunction in OS 343352931. The
“§:§i§5_’C§§fi1.A.:lidg€, Bangaiorc, after issuance of summons, on the appearancs sf
V. defandants and also after fiiing of the written statement wherein they have
‘ ..,__4’i;1ken a contention that the plaintiff is not the uwner of the scheéule groperiy
\-JP”
In the circumstances, ii appears there is :19 deiibcrate ac: on _the gm
ef {he appellant in mi paying the deficit cam’: fee and it is uninie;:xEi§3’m§_l.’7I}1e
plaintiff shail be given opporiunity £0 defend his case an *:”:,o .
prejudice would be caused as flu: respondents as they vsziii’ ‘fgxlicgt ” = ‘V
eppcsrtuniry to ctmtest the matter.
Accordingy, appeal is ailowed. ‘ifngéixgned oféet ‘iVVS”:§sV.’;f agigie. M335:
is remanded back to the trial .c’b’¢1:jt ..the sarrvtvéu aocuréancc
with Law. Pariies are déreetad’ tul’ izrial court an 15′”
Becember, 2£3t?8. I7he’:¢;:5m_zrt fa}: be adjusted towards
the deficit $3.?’ the 002111 fee éegaesiied kef-are this
Court. No 055:5.” %
Sd/-~
Judge