M/S Madhu Constructions vs Karnataka Regional Engineering … on 21 April, 2009

-1-

1% THE HEGH CQSRT OF KARNATAK% RT BRNGALGRE 

DATED THIS THE 21"'aAY my APREL 2039

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JfiSTECE A S.BG§%NfifiEfb .

R.S.A.NG.2fi€8XiQO7;- ?u
aawwggw '

1 M/S MADHU c@NsTRacT:oNs",'
CONTRACTORS, , _W *-'
2mm FLOOR, VAS MRHAL _ _
BENDGR, MAN§ALGRE*$?5'QG2{
RE§.BY zrs PRQ?REETGR ["'
sR:.K.M.MAL;¥. _~u-;- -_x_ ;'V;

.4p =_ ; , = ~,I;;u%P§ELLANT

{By SR: %iJA§}gaig§m$»gHA? fif ADV}

§§D :

1 K§R§ATAKA"RE§EONEL
j£NG1NEgR1NG'coLLuGa SOCZE?Y
V'sR1N1vAsA NAGAR,
'V_*sURgTKAL;v,
1gMfiNGALGfiExEuK. 5?§e30
'  BY ITS smgamwgay,

2 '&aa?§Ar§@NAL ENSTETUTE
OF"TECHNOLOGY

'"a ..,gAR§gTAKA,

V SRINIVASR NASAR,
y"smm%mL
MANGALORE, D.K. 575930
BY ZTS DIRECTGR.
RES?GNDENTS

(By SR1 P S RAJAGGPAL AXE FOR R2}

2"b---9



..,2.

THIS REA IS FILE9 U/S :99 0? cpc AGA:Ns?,@5E,
JUDGEMENT ANS 930233 DATEB 22.01.2a0? PASSES §fi fi
RA.NG.9?/2G§3 aw Tag FELE 9? THE II AE§1.CEV§L*- .
.m&m majmg wm@mmm,Am§mNaTm:mwmm¢wu;
sarwzms ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT awn ;DECREE"za?._

01.32.2003

PASSED IN OS.NO.21§f§9 QN1THE_F$LE 0?

THE V ADDL CEVEL 3UQ§E {JR.§N.y_MANG§Log3,.D.m;a_»,f

EH18 APFEAL COMING ‘G§a_FeR”~§DM:33:Q§–@Ei$
DAY, Tag COURT QELIVEREB ?HEH§OLLOWE§G:’-5 ‘

”

Th@ agpellént héf%ifi:.§EWg§hé”,§éféfid&R§ in
0S.No.2Z6/1§9Q;45.gZTh§, 7$uit:.vin. quegtiom was
institut@d_.b§ {thé. piéigtiifs seeking for the
reiief of, manda€$fiy_ ifijfinction to direct the

defendantL andaAper5$ns claiming under them to

*. §aCafie& item” the ééifi ‘A’ schedule groperty and

éL3b te: fiixéct .the éefendant to pay a Sam of

R3.§3{50§X§ @§ damages for uae and occupatian of

V fi ]th§ suit ffi’ sc§edule progerty. The plaintiffs

*4 Eavé al$o prayed for mesne profits. Tha trial

*,_=Cofi:t “.by its judgmeat dated 1.2.2003 has

“2fiié@isseé. tha suit. The plaintiffs were

‘Htherefore, before ti: iower appeilate Court in

RA.No.9?f2003. Tha lower appaiiate Court 353%:

re–appreciating’ the evidenca on record _fiéS*»¢mm€&_i_

to the canciusion that the trial Court was noti”

justified and as such, the lower_ap$éiI3te’Ccurn_i

has allewed the appeal and deéxéed théf$Qit’¢f*

the plaintiffs directing itflé. déiénflan§s’§p%mnot
only” vacate the suitk_schedfiléi’fiigmis%é””bfi£ has
also directed the def%éfi§nfixgfi p%§ fifié damages as
claimefi by t§é,’p§éififii§§fi;i 3T#% éefendant

therefcre, _c1aifiing”it¢¥zb@ {aggrieved by the

judgmenfi cf ffig_i@we: appellate Ceurt is befaze

this Court in thiéiépfiefiig”

_2f~1?h&, briéf “facts leading to the present

.agyeéi a:é”fi&ét, &he 1?” piaiatiff is aa society

whicfi is kfifinifig Regional Engineeziag Callege at

Suratk&iiiVan& for constructicn of Certain

u”ibuiidingé in their campus had antrustefi the work

lto°.fihé: defendant under an agreement which was

.:entére& ints between them during Eabruary E§93.

Ai”T§e plaintiffs had handed ever the censtxuctian

i

“t

,4-

site including the area, wherein the defendant :3

presently continuing to stay in a _3hefi}Qeh,”e

24.1.1§92 and according to the piaietiffege the ”

construction was to be cempieted within a pegiefisi

of eighteen months as qohtefipleted ehfiert thew

agreement for the value iniicatee’fihereihfiMm§he
gzievance of the pleigtiffi3″i§ ghee, eespifie the
construction being cohfiietedSgfieieiiityaneactiene
between them ‘being iéieeeeg-flfihee«§eieadeet had
failed ta Veeeheifihevehee pet hp ih schedule ‘A’
propertfiiehei€he§e§eze;£§heifiheyer as made in the
eiaiht eae’=seugh€h:fef;]”eThe defendant on heing

served _with”~the. semmehe had appeared and even

“fiheughh gee, faef””xelating to the nature ef

Vtreneectieh between the parties is admitted, the

defenfiént ‘iheeetended that they are net

unautheyiseeiy squatting on the said preperty.

uiei§’we3 the confiehtien ef the defendant that the

ihilie” which they are entitied ta for the

meenetructien gut he by them had not beea paid by

i””€he plaintiffs and therefore, until such payment

J2

1 ,

is made, th@y were entitied té stay ifi; tne

premises. The trial Ccuxt om naticing :fié”r§wa1

cententions has framed has many’ as .miné<ui3$uesV'

far its consideration.

3. The fiarties hafi t駧éred ev§de$¢e} Wfhe
plaintiffs had examineg PW{§[ Qhfi gas gfiié to be
a Qraftsman in the ‘filainfiigféffl”§fisi;:u:ion and
had stated w;§§’,reg§f§’:£Q_”%h£u:fi%€ure Sf thé

t§an3aCtioa,~ Eh? érifil Qourfi ihcugh had ncticad

tha said evifiefce had Céme to the canclusion that
the sai&.witnesS*®aS<¢fifi;"a cGm;etent person ts

tender évidémcé an behalf of tha piaintiffs and

"had _the;efQ;e dismissad the suii. when the

pl&i§tiffSFWeie,before the lower appellate Ceugt,

CéSe;gxfi{"fGrth by time parties and <31 caming

ihe .lswér fa§§éilate Court has noticeé these
aspecfia éfhfihe matter in tha background cf the

A.

LC!

t§e CoficlusiGn that ?W.1, namely; Dinesh :3 a

:B:aft5man working in the plaintiffs’ institution

“~has reliad ax {flue evideace tendered through tha

said witngss, keeping in View the p$eadingS1§ut

forth 1: th@ parties and Emma accepted iflv3;é§m§

and in this regard has also ncticed the figcémefitfi

which. wexe marked an behalf’ cf “tbe3,plaifié;fféL ”

The lower appallate Court in €haE_§ie%Hfias:mé§e ‘

reference ts the dGcumenf l§i_ Ex:§?,’.yfi§$&q is 1a
final biil and also fihe dgcfifieni at EX»?8g§ The
said documents were fiéféxréfiifio ifi fine backgrounfi
of tfie contenticn sf Ska fi¢fefifi§%€ éfiig tfia biiia
had me? bee§i:p%§§f t.Z§%@f%fi %§ “E&e plaintiffs
cailing H§p5gx Egé TdéienééfiE io vacate the
premi3e§}&£hev1§Q§§ a§§ei:at@ Court has referrefi

to the nctice which wéfi marked as Ex.P6 and the

*ccnteh%iQfisxwfiié§-were taken in response to the

“aameb, 03 analysing the said evidence, the lewez

a§§éiiaté’ flQfir{ was af the viaw that the

plainfiiffs héd esfiablished their Cafié beferé the

‘ tzi8E Cdurt and thg triai Court was not

‘éugtified. insofar as th@ said exfient, the same

‘:would inéicate that the iawar appellate Caurt has

“~réferred ta tha evzdance in detail and has

J

arrived at a finding of fact with r9gar§WtQVthe

aspect réiating t0 the first reiief which*,;ad%j

been ssught far by the §laintiff3 ta difééa tie.

dgfendant to vacate fram the “suitz ‘Rk’ 3G§fidti€V

property. fin that aspect fif ghe fiafiteg; i fi5″nbt
see any error commifitefi by fiihe*_§Gwéfi’-ap§%llate
Court. However, whigefifiotfcgnfi t§éTsec0fid reiief
which ha& been, saugh: :f¢f_ p§” §fi§””pgaintiffs
befare th8_f%%%gi.,EGfi¥gx §fi§ uE§§ mafifier of
considerati$§ fif4£Eé’%é5§ by ffié lower agpeliate
Ssuxt afi$”§fi*§$a;£fig:$%§h_t$é iearned Coufisel, I
am of :fié.%ieQ-tfi%§u§n$§f%r as that as§ect 3f the

matter a substantial qaéatian 0f lfiw wmuid arise

“for cbésifiexatiofi’a$~fell0ws:

“Whefih@tV the 1owe:[ appellate Court w&s
justified Ea fdecreeigg the suit éirecting the

defen§ant téy§ay the damages cf R$.18,5§§X~ ané

u°AiQ this fégard, whether the iawex ap§ellate émuxt

_naS,’CGmmitted an erxor in gramtiag the decree

without referring is the evidence?

J,

-3-

4. In thia regaré on hearing bq§hllrh%V

learned Counsel, a perusal of the judgmenfi ar_:heal

lower appellate Court wcmld. indicate éfihat -5%}

noticed by thlg Court, the eéidéfiéé :g:é::ea{£g”7

by” the lower appellate C$QrrV ifilw%lthVlr§§$1€L’%o
the relief ssught for by th§Tplgi§tifiS1rQH§irect
the defendant to véc%fe’rrh§’iS§§§§mle premises.
with regard ta rhe damfigfis gr §§§§$fi for by the
plaintiffs, a fifirfisal 5: lfié fififigmént pasged by
the lcwer éépellgér’C§§gg:w@ul@”ln&icare that no
referenfié lg fiadg fin tgia grfirct cf the matter.
as notiéedl, th§’lréferérée to the dacumeats at

152.92? and Vin, j:~eS§::éc:*i: of the final 1:111 and

~rhe géhtefitlons fiat forth thereon. Nodeubt, even

l§hafi@hVthe.lfiQar appellate Ceurt had some to the

coflglusignlthailtfie defeadant had aver stayad in

the éuirl sdhedule ‘A’ remises deg ita havin
A § p Q

u”lcQmpl@te&”th@ Constructiaa of the premises, Wham

lthel*l$wer aypellate Court was required to

:cQn§ider the aspect of damages as claimed by the

A’*u@lalntiffs, it was also necessaryr ta leak into

J

“t

the evi&ence in this regard fie come ‘:02 a

conciusion with regard ta the nature of Q§éféfi&§}fl fi

the manner in whicé the damages bas.bee§,pr§yedVu

for by the plaintiffs and as :¢ ;whe$her ;3g¢h_

pleading figs been suppogted by nth@j,§eféfida$f*

insofar as the grant of dafiaéés. CR:ffi£S §é#@Ct
of the matter the ‘igwe§”Wafipeilate C¢ur§ has
seriously erred and ktharéfcgé,_:fl§§ *questiQn cf
law’ limitad. fie C§@ !$$;§¥ §é§§:§V’&f tha matter

would have ~€m_ be “afiswezefl in_»favGur of the
appellafit a3$ 3flMg”3ir§é:ion issued in? tha lower
appeilaté’Cbur€*té5p3§Eihé damages would have to
be Setgasidefi u

‘ _5;a fi¢c§r§iggiy, tha a§peai is allowed ix

parég w It :®S} clarified that the fiudgment ané

V._ figaree ~§é$3ed. by the lower appellate Court in

*«:d$c§éé;ng the Suit ts tha extent of directing tha

=fiefQnéént to remave the témporary structure pat

‘kfifi ‘in the plaint ‘A’ schedule pragerty is

uéufitained and the defendant, namely, the

i

-10″

appellant herein is directad E0 vacate,”ihQ

gremises within a pariod of three montE§’ufrQmg ”

today. The direction cf the iowerw,§Bveiiate ”

Cour: to the extent sf }hol@i§g’Z E§af* »§hQ_

piaintiffs are entitled fa: . damag%s: ‘bf*V

Rs.18,500/~ is sat aside.

in terms of thé~ abdge} ,fhé: éppeal stands

disposed cf. Naaoxder as to”:QstsQA ‘u

%%%% ‘V Sd/’_
Judge

Na-.,/;V._T-