IN THE HXGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 06"" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY9 * REGULAR SECOND APPEAL N0. 010390/'2'0'079 BETWEEN: 1. SR1 KARIGOWDA, , AGED ABOUT 70 _ ._ s/0. LATE CHENNEGOWDA; . . R/A YEMMEKOPPAL VILAAGE, 20 ' * KAsABAHoB1,1,~, , HUNSURTALUfK§A'3?OO0.1.X_A " 2. SR1 MAI.LES.RA,_"';»":V ' 0_ AGED AB'GT.,JT'j£L5 YEARS, s/0. KAR1G0'wiDA, R/A YEMNiEKOPP,AL v1L1AG--E. ' KASABA' HOBL1; ' HUNSUR 'I"ALUK -- 57000; -- 3. SR1» " A -AGBED ABGEGS 35 YEARS, »s/"Q. ELARIGQWDA, " -_R'/1A YEMM F.K~C_)IfPAL VILLAGE. KASABA iR(0.13L1'; HUNSUR. .TA--1_.,UK -- 570001. --. 3. 4.. 4".» SR1 CPIENNAIAH " "AC; ED ABOUT 33 YEARS. E%_/O§''_«KARIGOWI)A, 1' 'R/AYEMMEKOPPAI. VILLAGE, 3 KASABA HOBLI. HUNSUR TALUK -- 570001. 5. SR1. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 53/ O. KARIG-OWDA. R/ A YEMMEKOPIPAL VILLAGE. KASABA HOBLL HUNSUR TALUK my 570001. >- 5. SR} 'I'HAMMA1AH. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. S/0. KARIGOWDA, R/A YEMMEKOPPAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, V _ ,.'..".y..APPELLANTS AND: w/0 LATE PUf_I'TEGOWD.A--, _ '~ ~ A' R/A YEMMEKOPPALU VILLAGE. KASADAiviG131,1, V...H.0NS1_m'.: TALUK M S'70.00_j1:.v .....RESPONDENT
V (BY. Sm-.A1\/iAI§:?r’*;a:S’;§1′.”S. HOSMATH. ADV. FOR C/R.,)
THISRLSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF (:90, AGAINST THE
-.’.:VV’J0UDGIvE.E§NT’& DEGREE DA’I’ED:16.07.2009 PASSED IN RA.
‘No 03/2002 ON mp: FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE {SRDN} 8:
JjMFc.. ‘ HUNSUR. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
6
5. The trial Court held that the plaintiff xvaslinp
occupation of more than 8 guntas of
assertion that the plaintiff had planted only it
tress and not 17 coconut trees and , l
in occupation of more than guntas_of land’;’l-was not V
established by and
in that regard the trial suit for
injunction. This” appeal, the
lower appellate the finding of the
lower to be challenged
in this seen above on the facts
and circurnstalncesof thelcase, there is no substantial
qiicstion of lawpthat arises for consideration.
,.__”‘”f’.hleAlassertion of the defendants that the
“lv.l”–<i_efenidan'ts'. infact were the owners of 5 1/2 guntas which
occupied by the plaintiff, in excess of 8 guntas
é
that was sold. would be the subject matter of .311
independent suit which the defendants may iI1stitt.;'t"e.d:ifr1_d"'–_'
seeking to recover the possession based on tit1e..j1:f dd".
Accordingly, there is no case m-ade– out;
is rejected. _
ENS