IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS ON THE 17"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010'"=
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREi;§DY».: "
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.." 1"5'98 OF :.:dQ3_
BETWEEN:
Muniyappa.
S / 0 Thirumala'mn1anavara
Papanna.
Aged about 74 years.
Agricuiturist.
R/0.1-I01aliVi11age, _ , ; _
Huthur Hobli, 'V
Koiar Taluk-5631C1'.'" " T " »
""" :Appellant
{By SI1'.G.A.Sijika_r11;e Gvr;)wda,AdVV§'}__ -- '
AND:
1. Lakshmamma. u
0 Kyiséhngippa.
D6§o_a_ . V
Nagammag _ V ,
D / o.Late Govvfamma; .1" -~ ._ %
3'-J
W/o.Mu11ive11ka1:appa. ' V' 1
Aged about 61' years, '
Teraha1IiVV_i11age,' " _
Kasaba_E_Iobh.,
XKOI-Elr T--é1_1u1<,s.5eé10 1. ' aaaaa " '
Ch<5Wdé1rJpé1;--'«._"' % ..
S / o';1,a*gk:, Gowi*an1m*a",
V Aged about 58'3fe_a.f's.
' 'R/ o.TeI*a__ha1_11,* _
Kola)" Ta1'u}~:¥'563 101 .
VJ aya1i11'11a ,
W/o..Ar_1'afidappa.
Djo .aie" Gowramma,
H -Aged about 54 years,
RV/o'.'Bupa.raja11aha11i,
, Kasaba Hobh,
Kolar TaIuk~56310] .
: Respondents
(By Sr1.K.Srihari, Adv. for R1 ,2,2B--E)
RSA filed U/ s 100 of CPC against the judgement and decree
dt.19~3--2008 passed in R.A.No.168/2007 on the file of the Prl;Dist.
and Sess. Judge, kolar, dismissing the appeal and upholding the
judgment and decree dt.1i~4w2007 passed in O.S.N().2.92./i99"V--.Ol'?V.
the file of the Add}. Civil Judge {Jr.Dn.}, Kolar. 7
This appeal coming on for Admission this_-'da},I;:'i.the.: court' *
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the plaintii’li’bei’ore the court in a
suit for bare injunction. dismissed the
same on the ground that the to prove his
possession, confirmed in appeal by the
lower appellate l 3 V.
2. Thjéelvvonly question of law framed is as
H’ V l
“Whether til;-eVg’aeo11rts below were justified in law in not
Vld_éraw,ing lelgallllpresumption regarding possession of the lands
even though the R.T.C entries produced stands
name of plaintiff for more than 25 years which were
V’eja’4:s1.1nported by the statements made by the Late
Thirumalamrna before inams D.C. which were in fac.t__’ not
challenged by the defendants by filing appeal etc.,’?” 2′
3. Having regard to the facts and circurzistaiices, «in V V
suit for bare injunction, the questiongof
being declared was not in orders’. -..___Hence “iii-‘1Ve below –. ”
having held that the appellant –.f_ailep”1’ .. prove his
possession, does not _ from seeking
appropriate relief, if thevlawof ‘
4. “of the suit, having
b€€I1 conflrrriéldlllvirr prejudice the right of
the appellant”in” relief, if the law so
permits. it A hi hi
present” appeal is however rejected as no
substa-ntial law arises for consideration.