1 RSA No.36}:-'Z608 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF N0vEMBER_.'?;é08V'_';-f f . BEFORE THE Hownm DR. JUSTICE K. é T REGULAR SECOND APPEAL x'QV,'361/2063 1. BETWEEN: Mohanrao, S/<2 Laxman Rae Kuikami, Age: 61 years, Occ: Business, _ R / 0 Behind Krishna Bagalkot-S8?' 101. __ : ($5 (By Sri V R Déagar, I AND: 1.
Assistant Etixézszizutive Engineer.
Kaniiataka .P'<'}W¢rV 'i'1jansmiss–i=:.u.c:'
C0ipo1'3;i:i-an" Ltd'. ,' .
Bagaligoi-:58′? 1’Qi;~
‘ C§«it’is;hjé1;f1§a:goziéia§fiii,’;_ R
40 years,
(kc: Business,
‘ aaoiuiisnankax Trfiders,
C3’uru3jd£ia$i::war Taikics,
V a _Bf’aga31;0t-Z’38;’?.–‘ 101.
Appellant
Rcsggxmdents
£’I’his Regular Second Appeal is filed tmdzrr Section 100 of the Code
ofilivil Procedure, against the juciwent and decree dated 24.10.2007′
RSA N0.361f2008
passed in R A No.56/2006 on the file of the 1 Add}, Civjlfiuudge (Sr.
[)iv1:3..), Bagaikot, dismissing the Appeal and upholding&_a_i;z.i ‘V
the judgment and deems dated 20.4.2005 passed in on
the file of the Add}. Civil Judge: (Jr. mm), B§1ga}kot;~~ , ff ” ~
This Appeal coming on for admissio£;.&thi$T diayfifhé ”
‘(he foliowing:
The appeflant/plaintifl No. ‘G3; the fiie of Add]. Civil
Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Bagaikot, j,s’*’c.*.:=fg3:*e’–t;Lis”Lifi1cier Section 100 of
the Code of Civil 3-;.~tj–:§$i:3gé”the judgment and deems
dated 24.10.20a?’Tvmé;::§ i£i*;:§:–A”‘N. q..S6/’Q3355 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.
Dim.) as weI1 ‘r_as’ “decree of the triai Court dated
20.4.2006 made 3 2$i¢,’i9.;*’;e<}§§3 an the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
at.Baga1k0t4
2. of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
*3″. for the appellant submits that the Courts
vvfielow upon the €1OC’€.lI11t’I1t[I’E:I}t note (Ex.P–24}, which
— .;_:1-:2-:1: sig3:1e¢’;i_1t§}* the land Ioxvd and there was no consensus ad idem to
fiat eydsts landiord and mnam; re:-iationship between the
A 1%.? and the iandiord of the said premises and tha right of the
4§isf’3}§’1ant for getfirag e1ecmc scfion. it is also contenéeé that
RSA No.36if2(}O8
both the Courts beiow erred in not considering the documentatfi-evifienee
placed on record by the plaintifi in respect of the suit hole
that the defendant No.2 is trespasser.
4, The appcnam/p1asm_ie” fileci a sang for X
injunction, dixecfing the defendant electricity
supply given to the suit prexnises is the
tenant in respect of the suit pleaded that in the
eastern side of the 9′ x 14′), the
defendant No.2 bitsi:ne.ss and styie of Gouri
Shankar Tzadaseauagev ‘1e{;i2V1.«§£sked the plaintiff to run the
same bnsinessijin on, the defendant No.2 obtained
power supply the p1aim:ifi’s knowledge. The
iseneidii legaiu toiithe defendant No. 1 for disconnection of
petite: the ..e1efenda.nt No.1 did not concede the zeqnest of the
._plaintiAfiZ’ gaeeeeaee that the p1a:intifi’ had aineady filed a suit
it defendant’ in O S No.168/2006 for permanent injunction.
‘ i t1efendant..NoE1/ KPFCL remained absent before the trial Court. The
entered appearance and filed written statement admitting
was running a tea shop in T P No.67, but he denieé all
‘together avfennents. It is contended that the shop premises belongs to
Sit Shitvayogi Mandir Trust one he is a tenant under the said Trust and
he has been paying rents Iegulariy. It was aiso contended that the Trust
RSA No.361:’2W8
itself secured power supply to the premises afid the defefldantjisrpaying
electricity charges to the authority concerned and prayed of
the suit with costs.
5. 011 the basis of the p1eadi11gs, . the
issues. In support of the case of the vhhegote
RW-1 besides examining one as
P.W-2 and got marked Exs.?–}. to defendant No.2
got: him examined as hearing arguinents
and perusing evider2eel’l»m:iiteriol answered issue No.1 in the
negative ‘terrrpiove that the defendant No.2
unlawfully obtziizied shop from defendant No. 1. The
trial Court filrtherlllémusweredll’Viee1;;%”_.’;\}o.2 in the negative holding that the
and dismissed the suit. Feeling
agg1i§ex{edV:Vb3I__thee_’judfinent and decree of the irial Court, the plaintiff’
A No.56/2006. The lower Appellate Court
eonsisiexed urged and came to a conclusion that there was
restlie and dismissed the same. This is impugned in this
x There is a conemmnt finding by the Courts below. There ie no
illegality or infirmity in the imp*£1@.ed judgment of the 1″ Appellate Court
RSA No.361:’2£)i)8
confirming the judgment of the ma} Court. Ne substantial cjsjqesfion of
question of law arises for consideration in this Appeal. _ __ .V .
7. In the result, the Appeal fails and the same if
Bjs