IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS ON THE 23"" DAY OF' SEPTEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREi5Di<'i'e:-%----.: f r»
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NC, 1220 _()"F' 2''(m8-f - _ 1'
BETWEEN:
M.Prakash.
Aged about 48 years.
S/o.ManCheg0wda G.S.,
R/o.Chir1aI1ayakanahal1y,
I{.Shettiha1ly Hobli, .
Srirangapatna 'I'aiuk--5.'_7 1438,. _ '
Mandya District. n f
(By Sri.P.S.Manji1hié'l§h::Ad_jI..} Q
AND:
N.Kumara, V. ._
Aged about-v38 years,' " "
5/9-D-Na§arajc§0'Vda;" ..... .. -
:'R/ 0 .'Chir1anzijf'akVe¢nahally,
K;she:fiha11yu H0i;i.1i}"~ ._
Srira.ngapa'tna«.Ta1uk3_57 1438.
" " 7 ' * : Respondent
RSA"iil_e1d u/53.100 of CPC against the judgement es: decree
.: 3~O-..1_0-Oi'? passed in R.A.No.17/07 on the file of the Pr]. Civil
J.udge',_(S':'.Dn.} (SI JlVIFC., Srirangapatna. dismissing the appeal
arid Confirming the jL1dgemer;t and decree Dtd:22--O}--O7 passed in
. 65705 on the file of the Pri.C1'vil Judge, (Jr.Dn}, Srirangapat.r1a.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the court
all ' A _ A delivered the following:
5
Ix)
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. it
2. The appellant was the defendant before
court, in a suit for injunction. The clairniof the, «plai.11tiff7was’
that she had purchased the property”rnie’asuririgL’70
100 yards and that defendant wasr.interfering”wi”tha”t:hVe”samelV
The suit having been cor’it~e_sted,””ittvvas-._pcontended by the
defendant that he was clainiinglthe in terms of
Ex.D1 which measures that the Janjar
number would iVnd;ic;ate’.properties overlap, because
the plaintiff ‘s_ 50 yards X 100 yards and
that the plaintiff was”illlegallypclaiming property covered under
EXTD l, wihivcfi hadla Janjar number.
” court on a close examination of the
‘AAVfi’espective docxirnlents has arrived at a finding of fact that
Vread’vvvith the corroborative evidence in Ex.P2 to P5, it
v_Vas’~~e’s’tablished that the sale deed of the plaintiff discloses
if suit property measured 70 yards X 100 yards and
it further in so far as the claim set up by the defendant in terms
é
of Ex.I}1 sale deed, did not indicate any Janjar number in
respect of the property claimed by the defendant there
was no material evidence to show as to when s1__;eh at
number was assigned and the bOuI_}.d3I’_i’€S lp’i”o’_perty’°’
described in Ex.D1 was totally alien
in EXP}. Accordingly, it was
The same having been challenge.’ in, appfieai, ,the lower
ss . ‘ ” -. .
appellate court has affirmed fact. It is that
which is now challenged
4. T of law are framed
in the appeal memo;-» .’
(1) Whetnef . below were right in
V’ [accepting the plaintiff has purchased the
V sjxchedulellllllproperty measuring East West
V’ it “and North South 100 yards from
on 12.11.1969 contrary to the
V recitals in the sale deed dated 12.11.1969
it I«:x;i>1?
j’..lWhether the courts below were right in
Q’ accepting the contention of the plaintiff that
defendant has encroacheci upon plaintiff
property in the absenee of any evidence to
K
show as to which portion of the suit schediile
roperty is encroached uplon by the d€f€DdE1I1.TQ..”.._l.”-V
5. he learned counsel for t e appellant WQ.1.1_1_t’i.Vse.epk”to
emphasize that EXP} discloses that the property
50 yards X 100 yards and not 70 yargjlsmxll 1’O.vO~.yardls::’
was a clear error committed by the courts..below1;i.n”acce.ptinygV.L
the plaintiffs case. However, _peruVsa1l’ot”‘ original
document, it is found thatthe pro;ij:e’rty.y.lii1deed rneasured 70
yards X 100 yards, as foundpbiy ‘l§elo9w.
6. :vofTi’act.–cannot be set at naught by
this Court. Th_e’re is noZ-ls’ob’stai1tial question of law that arises
for consideration.
appeal is rejected.
Sd/~
Iudge