-1-
IN THE KIGK COURT or KARNAEAKA Am BANGALORE
DATED mars man 23″ nny er JULY, 2033,
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE ma.JusTIcE L §AnAxAmA’swhM&’f :’
REGULAR FIRST APp2AL~nv,aa3V6fi”éQ9é’ g,’
BETWEER:
1
RAHJAPEA V ~,
$fO.DODDAKINGAIAH *,”a
Assn ABOUT 53 YEARs'<_ V
R/OF RAM3HAKGEPALU"VILLAGE
sanmnaaacxaaazhx Ho3LI".;."~_
K R PET maznx "'L *= *»=
s/c.§Amg»'KIKKEa1GofinA='=»»
AGEB"ABGUT 52;¥EARsYV[' .
R/or EaMAfiaKc9§ALU-?1LLAsn
VTsAnmna3A£HAHALhx_noaLz
x.a%pETrmALUK*,
=_Poo&aa;"¢KxKxANuA
';o.nofinALAa
. Vfisanéaaauw 53 YEARS
»_R¢cg'RaMANaxoPpALU VILLAGE
V*. $a§mfisgacHAHALLI 303;:
K 3.23? TALUK
cmm
VS/0.KURICHIKKANHA
'REED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RIO? RAMARAKOPEALU VILLAGE
SANTHEBACHAHALLI HDBLI
K R PET £ALUX
-2-
5 xaazsa
S/0.MASTER KALEGOWDA
ABEE Azouw 33 YEARS
R/OF RAMRRAKOPRALU VILLAGE
SANTKEEACEAHALLI HOBLI
K R paw mama: _.w.
5 JAXARAMA
S/G.PAPANRA _
AGED ABOUT 38 ymAas.a V
R/OE R$M3RAKOPRALU”VIiLAGE’g =
saswnaaacnaxanzx 303:; .u ”
K R 932 mALaK, “”=_f 2. “A~
. } ; 1~V’af,§;_APPELLANTS
{By Sri N R uaxx 5 asscA1mss,}3Dv., )
AND :
1 cH:KKn:fi$§–‘:_, ._=Iwu
S/0.K$LALIHS ‘ii A=r
M,$;sCs BEap_s¥’;}as»w__5
27,nANJ3fla. =_”__~.’
‘ASE ?a £$Ags,*mAJoa
RfO;RAM%NAK92PfiL VILLAGE
_ K R paw xanux; Manny;
;*a ,JayAREscwmA»
” “A533 53 YEARS
.–,s;¢ Lam: CHIKKAIAfi
‘v.I,aaszMENw, Manxx avxnszue
‘ L–§=R§FEREL Mane
.BOMEAX soc cos
4”,KAaALxnaAsowBA @ GOBAIAH
S/0.CHIKKAIA£, 53 YEARS
AGRICGLTURIST, R/Ar RAMARAKOPPALV
vxnnaas, sanwanannanzx KGBLI
K R par … nzsponnzuws
(By Sri G s Exam 5 Assgfamms 3
-3-
am FILEB :1/$.95 cpc Ammszc mg:
mm manna mama 11.e.2ooa passm zu ;o~.-s«’,vzqc}.»«2_4;.92
on THE mm er en mar” czvtcz. .;rtI;s<~m._(s1¢;%z;ze*–.)%*,
SRIRANGAEATNA, DECREEIHG TEE _ x$UIT_ 'FQR"
DECEARATIOH, PERMRRENT INJ§HCTIONg
mars REA comm on ma Txsfirzxne "
THIS DEX, THIS COWRT DELIVERED THE KQLLOWING;7, g
-1-he appellvamfis ;§§§e:’.§1eféérid2ii$:’t:s in os
No.24/1992 on Addl. , Civil
Judge (s:;..<s::;j.j_-_
2 filed the
suit" A injunction . It is
the '*_<3é.'.se' %29$A».%Vt.u§é'T%'.,[%:;g1a1nt1:fs that the suit
schedxzie. " pgofiafities sy.N.34/4 measuring
sitiiaiza-d at Ramanakppalu village and
measuring 3.A.–11G of land in
.’A?s§i§:ishi¥iig.§.nhs11i village, K R Pet Taluk are
jo:£n§t.fa.mi1y properties. The first plaintiff
.V=}féi;a the kartha of the family and after –his
death the second defendant became the kaxrtha
-4-
of the family. It is stated in the hlaint
that the defendants obstructed
possessicn of the plaintiffs,
os No.271/1991 for declagatiéfi ant :njgtgti;n.*
In the said suit tha’ .3}:
appliaation fbr tanptttgyhitjuhgtidfi and the
suit was dism1$§a§Tti§4é the defefidants did
not file _afiy; thjgtitttnt’ statement.
Therea f h A ‘L in 1: V. V tzndants started
possession of
_’ filed the present
suit}_ “Theht§etét¢a§ts filed their written
stateznernxt’-sgtzitifég that plaintiffs are not the
. the suit schedule propexties. They
that the villagers of
Rmnanaktfipfialu includzng the defendants have to
.ApLas.é”~–through .$y.No.31 and 34!4, i.e, , the land
A’ thbaféfionging to the plaintiffs to go to Kathe and
.–[then to Megalcor and Gomala. According to
“K
_5..
them, except: this road there is
available and hence they -.hQavf’e [:-:2
extent of 15 feet in
The? have further’. this
fifteen feet they doAV-nfifl;-.d1gim éin3–,*. right title
car interest csveiz’ fzrze’ in quasticm.
2. §>i:’* “t7:ia pleadings, the
court 1′ ‘ four issues.
M. .t’nemse3.ves as 139%’ 1 and PW
2 ad; get méfikfiégéifiht documents. Befendants
-lgtq 3 Vw.e=.fr?a- as DW 1 to D9? 3. They
“”-_”n$vé=m;gked fifie documents on their behalf.
j_ éfter gazing thraugh the pleadings ané
fiiugfiécunaents, came conclusicn that the
2 ~ ‘Tp3,aintiffs succeeded in proving their
awnership and possession ever the land in
que$tion and accordingly deczraed the suit.
.. 5 ..
Hence the defendants are befmre this court in
this appeal .
5 . The contention of
defendants is that they
in respect of fifteen “tA::5;2it.””A ”
scheeule property. sutpert s%te2;’:d
they have proéueed }§.’.:V_:__._ib-:1 =.;_1Vnd..I3v-£__ the index of
lands . Ex . D-4:3? j . ” _r:’.ghts . Ex . B-4
re::.e’3.!.1,tit>h ‘igeopye'”‘Ex;§D-5 ietter of Mandel
Pa£s<f:heyat{" their case that the court
be1o1t'e'–.tfa1.1ve<iA'te'«.e_'éippreciate the case made out
uiienee they pray fer setting aside
'Ve"theeimpfigned ordex.
V A Von behalf of first xesp<::nd.ent–
fileintiff, pwmz has stated that the prqerties
question are ancestral properties. He has
deposed in his evieenee that the defendants
are forcibly trying to use the preperty in
question as a road to reach the katte. He has
-7..
produced RTC Extracts Ex.P1 and ExP2 fie; the
year 1991~92 and also produce&”enmteti¢n
register extract and it is marked eeVfix,F$ tat;
prove the ownership of the ;afifi’ifif¢eeet;en.e
He has also produced pttere”cep§eel$§f§§ aed
Ex.P5, Axar Band Reeietep’ektteet earked as
Ex.P6. The atl#$agn%d§§gQ%Hth§ sfiifi schedule
prqperties_marked_ee fie;??’eeegtx.P8. He has
stated tfietfeigtt item fite yeer 1924, there is
no m§;:$ne§t’a§7Vgg%e #p§d in any of the
aoeu¢éntg;_e[}§a5¢é the” claim of easmentary
rigttu@ee’§§lfifi§¥efendants is baelese.
., 7. t?fi%2e’afi independent eyewitness, “has
v%,_ gtefiéfi that tfiere is a katte in the land of
“tfietfiaeifitiffis. The peeple of Ramanakqppalu
tvfiilageflifi ordex to go to the katte never pass
‘V, thrcugh the land of the plaintiffs. There is
§ .fie road in the suit schedule prcperty.
-3-
3. on behalf af the the
appellants examined himselfi as
stated in his cross-exaxrminatizzry»vthstviiha
not have any revenue iecozsrifiv <52; V
that there is a road -gassing 3
in question. 2 V' I V
9. nw-2 f:.r¢ss’msxa:nination has
deposed that they.’ ‘La position to
produce_ the existence
of thei:?é:-dg:’»»v . V
J defendant No.1 in the
suit,’ has’ any material to
myovef of the road.
. Ex 1’3»-1 and B-2, produced by the
K : there is no entry regarding
éxis.f:e§£:c§’e of the road. Ex.£3W–4 is a resoluticn
.. pssseéi by the Mammal Panchayat regarding
“;_v’3:’e:fp5air of the road. Ex.D–5 is a letter dtzd
“:1-8-1992 wherein it is stated that there is 3
“\
-9-
road in existenee for the past. 50 ye,a;Vfe’t.*._’_ But
‘none of the documents speak the
existence of the read in the
property. ‘ . A
12 . I have
order as well as 2 decumentary
evidence pl aced.f$é:f¢’te 1_:’t below .
13. The successfully
proved the owners of
the thy way of evidence
aracik relevant: documents.
aawééefitthéet éféfidants have failed to
e:§*l:;al:lisVh”.. case. Not a single document
by the defendants to show
_ of a road in the suit schedule
property.
The czourt below after: appreciating
‘Kethe evidence and the documents produced by the
‘tparties has decreed the suit.
A
-39-
15 . In these circumstanaes, no
ground ta interfere with
order passed by the courfi’; 4′
Accordingly, the: n’.sV VA
Judge