IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE 6″‘ DAY 01: LANU
BEFOREVA
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTTCEA_NANiD13’1;RA:’Rl§}DDY
REGULAR sEC0N§'”ARRVEA:{‘RN.RQ,iA$7/20048 {BEGIN};
BETWEEN: ‘
Nanjappa, _ 2 ‘V ”
S/0. Ba1iap’p_an.;;”Nz1nj’appii;i’: ”
M£1j01',,. ~~~~ 1;/:::. .. 'V V. V' " Residing _ _ -- Lakshimafiapum . H Kay.-1b2'1H.QbE.Ri, . ' A' _
N;_m;;m:1gu;:«.fra::,;1< 5:? 13131. …/APPELLANT
* _ (ggAsh,:;A. M;.1h::11tési'1"S'.' Hosmath, Adv.)
I Nz.ig;i:*~:1;ja1ppa,
,. Sig). Shivalingappza.
OT.
‘ Mahadevappa,
S/0. Siddappa,
Major.
Boih are residing at,
Lukshmanapura Viilage.
3
Ix)
Kasaha Hobli,
Nanjanagud Taluk — 571301. …Rt3f§PQ}$i}fi)iiE}i\t.Tf*_4S
This Regular Second Appeal ;iisiiiii’i1edi.Lii:1der iSeeti«i)fi’iii()0″.(iti ii.
Code of C Evil Procedure, 1908 zigaiiifi.-st t1ieA._}iudig_r:iiie.ii:
dated (‘)8.04.2(.)(_)8 pztssed in RA,E\i(_i.2 I/i2.(_)03 on thefile Of the’CiVii
Judge (Senior Division) and Niazijahgudv, d.iS’1r:i:3siing the
appeal and confirming the jLtdgrriCn_tund decree dated 11.03.2003
passed in O.S.N0.43/2.001. on thee—-fii’e–.0f-.the Pri’ne.i.pa.i’Civil Judge
(Junior Division) and Aidditionzti J
This Regular’ Sec()n.d.,A’ppc21AI =.cdrii’ing’- 9:1′. for admission this
day, the Court _deii_vei’edithe§t'<.)l«i<)wihg:V~.5'
" .]i"U'fDii"G M N T
Feieardi the appeilant.
9 0′ .._The eippe£”}~i3;11tb_iwtgiisdtiic piaintiflii he1″ore the triad court
ciairigiiiighn area_:7nea1su’;”i:ig 14 feet wide in respect of his house
.ipi*0,Dertyi ihciudving Vacant area of 14′ x 32′ feet. The Defendants
haAd’-resiiSte’d–..theiiéuit. The trial court dicsrniszsed the suit and an
appeai h’a1yi.h¥g been filed, the appeai has aiso been dismissed.
it 3. It wazs c:ateg0rE_cai1y found by the First Appeilatte Court
that the plaintiff had admitted as to 3 gL11″11’a-as of land in the very
area where he was claiming the egg of land measuririg E4 x 3’2
1;.)
feet co1’respt)nding to 3 guiitas is said to have be_e.’r’i”‘pt1vi=c.has;ed~.hy
the Defendant from one Shri. Madevappa ilIi(l_–(‘:’fl’!4=3’l:’:i., i
As found by the trial court. the pAl£%1All1El’l5l’illgidv2i(}fE1l_t[€:;ithaEl”*
the defendant had pu1’chaseld’«..__the proipertyz’:l’;Eo:§i_: one
Madevappa, which has laeen by A;a?pell_ate Court
as well. In the face of tliis apparent c.lii’t’C”t:.1Iilstance, that there is no
. vacant site in l;:slaintiff measuring 14
X 32 feet ;’a”nd_««._th’ev’d3furthe–tf_:. coiit4eiit_iot1’t)t’ the appellant that the
defendant” had il’ii’e{i~..alsiiilt’iii_iirespect of the shed. which is a part of
the suit schedule pift)i;3ert3t.~~iand that suit having been dismissed in
Or-.S.lfNQ.iicl28/20(il”ifi*Vth6 Court of the Civil Judge (Junior
“f)i_\}isilori).; »vFJayit.ngere have also been addressed by the Courts
be.l_ow t;;).i:ioi.–iit out that the said suit related to the other area of the
suit schedule property and did not pertain to the vacant site which
‘clai med.
Hence there is no substantial question of law that would
arise given the above facts and circumstances.
%
Acc<)1'dingEy, the appeai smnds 11-jected. 'M
* V%