Md Khasim vs Md Murtuza on 11 January, 2010

fl

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 1 1*" DAY OF JANUARY 2010 
BEFORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHPIN Djzxs'e' 

MISC. SECOND APPEAL Nos;5'G9'a 5"I0/v2Iip9._  

BETWEEN:

Md. Khasim s/0 Abdul Gaf-odor,  ff ;

Age: 53 years, Oce: Emplayee in  "

C.C.I. Kurkunta, R/0 Kuvrkunia. * &  v_ «V 

Tq: Sedam, Disfiv:'G.ulbarga--58.5: 222"."  f' APPELLANT

    .. 1  _  '(COMMON IN BOTH)
(By Sri E';h.afa1é.abga'ssap_pa Kfiabshetty, adv.)

Md. lvluftjuza s/Q Abd.u}'ICr-afQd1'__.

Age: 38 years. ,Oec«:. CO(A)V'1f(>3._u''lT_/'(')' "

Kurkunta,Tq--:--. Sedam. L)_ist:., Gulbarga

Pin:585£222.  A  ' ' RESPONDENT
 ~  {COMMON IN BOTH)

$<***=!=

  .__[By Sri K. Appa Rao, adv.)

Mi_sc:ell'aIIe0us Second Appeal filed U/0 43 Rule

 IV1(u] of CPC., against the Judgment and Decree dated

 '3,/3/2008 passed in R.A.N0s.'7/O5 8.: 8/05 on the file of

I {f€:he' C.i'vil Judge (Sr.I)r1.] Sedam, allowing the appeal and

l' . sei.tin'g aside the Judgment, and Decree dated

   30;/11/2004 passed in OS. No.85/2000 and

 O-.lS.NO.65/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (JI'.Dn.) at
 Sedam.

2.,/xi!' Elkjfixym,



enjoyment. of plaint seheclule properties he filed these
suits for bare injunction.

4. On the basis of the pleadings,  l

framed the following issues.

1. Whether the pla_intitt"w..pr'oyes  he l K
is in lawful possession' "property?  

2. Whether the Ay_plléiint'iff pro've.s 
alleged interfere~n_e}3?    ._  _

3. Whether  e;1¢'f§f-f:c1aeiit " proxies that,
he is:,  Mint;l_iewné§é'_j_...ai1ti it in joint
  along with the

  has pecuniary

jtzrisdietioniltio._ti*yjthe.--~suit?

5:llVVhet_her suit is properly Valued

..  srid Co1irt..tee psid is correct?
 TEii;«i..Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

 ' of perpetual injunction'?
l  What order or decree?

" .tIssu"¢ls in o.s. No.85 /2000
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he
is in lawful possession of suit. properties'?

i

C714-'v\/'x



 stated above, the trial Court framed the issues

   The trial Court recorded common

Vlgjhtiridgmerit. In the course of Judgment, the trial Court
 s.j_rel'e1red to the oral and documentary evidence of both

 'the parties and also the pleadings. Further, the trial

é

matter to the trial Court on the ground
that no separate finding is given on
each. of the issues involved in both the

suits'?

2. Whether the lojWerl"'i'&plpellatle' V
Court is legally correct    
the trial Court hastrio-tjj given  
with regard to the  llbetfiweenllfg
the parties v  in  fihfor hem?

injunction?

9. It is" :t'1':;;;f-"ji:r_1. ;7_disp'[ite"'  the suits in
O.S.No.65/SQO  the parties are same

and the pr_aye1_.".  perpetu_al injunction is same. In

O.S.No.(A3"5/00  is house property and

in 053. _Nol.8E3l[()'Ol the subject matter is agricultural

evid'enee"of«:l"lboth the parties and passed a common





7

Court considered the house property and also t.he
landed property since it is a common Judgment, There

is no need for the trial Court. to give a separate 

on each of the issues in both the suits. 

given by the trial Court is applicable to_-a'llv-u '» 

arising in both the suits. Therefore .the3 lower 

Court committed an illeg;-a:_lit.y in'~..settingja;sidVeV lithe 

Judgment of the trial  the  no
separate finding is gixrlenlilll,   of the issues
in both the suits.  law No.1 is
answered '  it ll 

1Q,   are for grant of
permanent  hasis of lawful possession.

The elaimllllofpplaintilflfetsphased on a partition in the year

.-'v.A'vl98'?'~l;:. deferlda.nt_denied this partition. On Careful

  -RT C extract the trial Court held that the

narne of  and the name of defendant are

lV._n'1utated'gseparately. On the basis of this evidence on

A  the trial Court held that plaintiff is in lawful

x!\/K,



9

ORDER

Both the appeals are hereby allowed. V.-‘-The

impugned common Judgment. dated ‘4

Nos? & 8/2005 is hereby set: aside} “isglheiy

remanded to the lower Appellate Clomjt f0rA’fresh_

in accordance with Law as expeditioliely as posSi”oIe.

Ordered accordingly. ll

gggl;

*~r¢:}l3§DGE

Lr