v _ V. Céxxggsilrmappa, Advocate)
IN THE'. HIGH COURT op KARNATAKA AT *
DATED THIS THEE!" maze? A L
THE HON'BLE MR. mSTié.§:3ANAND_
OF
_(_3/w REGULAR sECi)N13 }&PP_EAI;_. No3 13 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
Smt. Katanima,-'F9 years " '
W./o % k
A3ficu lluris1"~ .4 .
Resident of = ' '
Viiiage, Ijlobii '4 " -.___ ' " ' « '"
ArsikereTa!qk~, % APPELLANT
* COMMON
1.
‘ 433 years
Sm J’o@ppa_ ” 4’
Reéidgflt ofTh%rupat|1ihalli
‘ Village, Jhavagal Hobli
V . Arsikere Taluk
Shivanna, 45 years
S:’o Jogappa
V Resident of Thiruputhihalli
Viltage, Jhavagai Hobii
%
Amikcrc Taluk %
‘.
(By Sml. Sum: Vakkimd, Advocate: IE}: i ii. i
auunuas
This Regular Scum’ d is (iii
the Code of Civil Pmccdum, 1938; against. the”jud1gement and
decree dated 13.03.2903—,.{n!33t:d**’in VA, N0-ii’?.fl998 in R.S.A.
NO. 1712004 and R. 25′-{ii ‘S. A. N3. ISKZOO4, on
the file: 91′ the Civil Judge’ (Seniu-.r.i1’I:§éivi;iim?:}, Amikcrc, dismissing
the Appcai and Asetu’ng’».-aside. tilt: ‘v.JtEdgm{*fifi” Decree dated
16.12.1997 pasmrd fix: 0. on the like of the
Additional CM! iaage (Ii: rm,
f:3i¢:écI.)i’id” having been heard and
reservcsd and’Oi2_4f¥3z”paronoiii1oement of Iudgmcnt this day,
the Coiirt d.eii-mm-:i’-she foi*!g_5wi:3g’:-
‘ i ii is M E N ‘1’
wfum the Trial Court is the appellant herein.
Iii iihiiiagipellant as éplainliff had sought for the relief of
cixiaiiiraiiuiiiiiiiiifiizlille daclaring that the pzaimixr was um lawful
qwncr.’u{iPIain£ A and B schedule pmpeflics and for a permanent
A restraining the defendanis Iium lmspassing into {he suit
ii H-:;i:h¢xiule pmpcriics.
Court is to the cilbct that since the defendants ha.§té£: ‘
any documents to establish their claim in t’Ez£.int 1.
schtadulc, in the thus of [hit ‘~!.1aazViit§’~.:V:t;it*.-:::_afV1
transferred in the name of
cunctudcd that the pxaszttitt’ wtttttttggntte §g»ner.t This has
been squarely Court, on the
fueling that property mcrety on
the basis of the relationship claimed
not in ordtzr. And the Counsel
would ptauet of this Court in Kfiopala
Reqtg» ma Others, 2004(1) KCCR 662, to
cjthntcntiv that _i’1’rss:;’c revtanuc entries cannot be the basis to dedlare
in respect of any immuvtsabie property.
7:» way of reply, the Counsel for the appellant would
in the face of the admission in the written statement,
eilhct that the suit properties stood in the name of the
” -~-hgusmnd of the plaintiff, there was no burden cast 01′; the plaintiff
13
then: was no basis for the Trial Court to have
elfeel, in the face of its finding (11% ;
property was with the plaia£i1Ti In
oral and documentary evidence in tlie
revenue records weak! a flavour of
the piainlill’ and Court was not
jusiified in dssmsssssag “‘;fi£a.5.rt.£a”{‘i” and the ma: Court
was not :.u:.:;,.i.g, or schedule ‘B’
the Counsel would submit
[hat the eppeuls the quesfiums of law be anxwered
in fa§fi)ur.of li1e”a§)f)ella1ils.
., gt careful euusideratiun of the pleadings, the
Courts below and the material on reeurd in
que:-mun’ s of law (hat have been framed in the
,m. it may be said [ml the alleged admission in
V’ Ffaxugrw-I of the wtillsen eanlcmenl, is not an admission that
wouid enable the plaintiff to eiuim the suit property as her
3
I8
interfering with (he: plainl ‘B’ mzhedule property
parties to bear their own costs.
av V”