7' PETER PRAKASH AGED '.20 YEARS 53/ C) RAYAPPA RESPONDENT N031 TO 7 '
R/AT GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN __ ~ _
8 TOWN MUNICEPAL COUNCIL
SRIRANGAPATNA
BY1TSCHIEE’Oi3’F’ICER I ” ” ”
SRERANGAPATNA RE:fSP(>I§II§}.E,}I>§T{fS
(BY SR1 RAJENDRA s ANKALKOTI :22 ‘1?-ot R1’:=:I ‘ ”
THIS RSA IS F1IE;_D”‘»~..U/:5; V3.§)c:},0E*’~–cP<: AGAINST "rm;
JUDGEMENT 85 macaw. =I;)*I':.25II-I..f.;».::§0-5_ PASSED IN
R.A.NO.68/95?' Q_r~1"*rH.s I"IIjI:.I§:"'=~r:;sI'«'g 'I'HE. ADDL. CIVIL JUBGE
(SR.{}N), SRiRA'i¥¥fT?APA'3'Z\fA,"=131SEi'1ISS'§NG THE APPEAL AND
CONF'IRMING_ '*z,'HE'::::,IIL;L*Ic:.I<zI.E;I~:*1*'-~-IwI:s DEGREE D'I'.2.8. I997
FASSEEI IN o'.'-s;No,2?55,*.$9'~w..oNT-III; FILE 01? THE PRL. CIVIL
JUEKEE E-JR.'-Dié}, SP€iE?ANGAPA'FNA(
'I'HIs=-;I9PEA'L eiié§1»III§i';:§k:V9:'~: FOR ADMISSION 'FHiS my,
THE COURT D«F2LiVEF3ED'._TH*E FOLLOWING:
:"u V_ QEDGMENT
éijgiggflant herein is the second defendant in
()._ The respondent Nos.1 to 3?' herein were
the the said suit and were seeking for the
'j1;ciVgx3aefz:I;1;; and decree of declarafictm and permanent
_ izf1§21n_I§ti0n, in respect of the suit schttéule property. The Trial
VA afixsr noticing tbs rival contentious and on analysing
VV the evirience has dacxeed the suit by its judgment dated
IL
5
02.08.1993′. The defendants were therefore before th.evVLe{ver
Appellate Conn: in R.A.No.68/1997. The
Court on re–appIec:iati011 of the evidence has–» ”
findings of the Trial Court and diisizglisseézi. fj%:1ie £;Lp”peé1» T
judgment eiated 25.1}..2005.,*
findings relldered by the Courtsxfielxoiv, defendant
aione is before this .evi’1*e refe1’1’ed to in the
same rank as assigned Court for the
gurposse of conraeiiieiice ck-iI1’tj,r. ‘ u
2:V;f1’he’ -for “the appellant While assaiiing
the judgmezjts paisseiii’ Ceurte below wouid contend
that €ou1*£e”E3eiew xxfere not gustified in their conclusion.
Vft*i’:«;7V}”ca;’3;A1:e:11s:i:ei;iVii1at when the plaintiffs had placed reliance
Len’:a$’1_1V.uI;.t9egis£eV:’eii sale deed, the burden was heavier on the
p1aiii1;if1’s’;:_”tk:3-.;:j”z*o\se the case. It 13 contended that the Courts
izeiejnz leave wrongly Jfelied on the said éoeument ten heid that
had pmved title 1:0 the property. 011 the other
% ..i1::e1d, according to the Iearneci counsel, the deiexzdanis has?
Vprodueed sufiieieni: documents to indicaée that the
45
defendants are the (3″§¥I}€f.E{‘:”-i cf the property age! are in
possession of ihe same and thexefme, the Trial Ceu:f:’eeeu_1d
not have disearéed the said evicienee only on z_1;tfi’.ie.i11g_: ihe
fact that the Tewn Municieai Council haci not..;)_fcyiueed._afi}?”
records before the Court. In that
since the maxmer of appxeciafien of tfhe evidence ‘bye: tile *’
Courts below is not sustaineB’1e:,”‘» the jiizigineilt for
interference by this «_
39 * respondents however
sought passed by the Ceurts below.
1: is eo;1tez1£iedVV’o33.V»L:e1ia_Jf’ 25% the plaintijfs that the plairltiifs
«.1;ho’:i:g5i1 umegistereczi sale deed, the same
<Jf°eV1"f~}.04 and the value of the preperty was beiow
Re; 1 — éeti_fE1eIefore, a saie made under such a document
'euwas "val;1adt_ end the Ceurts below have noticed that the
V' 'fljdeetiment was more than 30 yeam old and had accepted the
' Same'; In adflition te the same, the Courts below have also
" .'if1e:ti<:e:;i the other documents which were produced by the
plamfifls infiieating that the property stood in the name of
$
"4
5. 011 the other hand, the defendants on appearigug
before the Trial Court had flied their wlitten statemen’te_”e12;fd
had contended that the fifth. Ciefexzdant-‘I’ow::1_ ;Ve’r»::::ii¢_;%§a§’
Council hati auctioned the property and ”
dated 26.05.1973 was issued in
Pursuant to the same, the defe:1.dantS’~–‘_néi\’
respect of the property and the cVe11not
claim any right with written
statement, details were else regard to the
measm:emeef aceerciingly, sought for
dismissaiof the : V ., ”
4563″.’ 1:1 v;Viewu V_Vv;}f” five} contentions urged, the ‘i’1::ia1
Vcoufi; f1’2:f11eE1’~.g2s mazxy as five issues for its consideration.
VV examined herself as PW-=1 anti three
Wit11x3_f§S€S’$E?¢§?€ examined as PWs.2 tea 4 and the documents
its ?28 were marker}. On behalf of the defenfiaxzts,
defendant had examined himself as flW~1 and
hezseémined witnesses at DWS.2 and 3 and the documents at
E}:{s.§31 is D}? were marked. In the background of the
evidence tendered by the parties, the Couris below have
J
‘u
Municipality who was the fifih defendant before
Court has not supported the case of the seconci. .
who Ckfinmd fightto ux:;nnpeny, Ike men &eéussmus’*
made by the Courts below woulei-1′ :%n:;i[ie..rite«
Ciourts have referred to the evi§_:ie.1}ce éfirajiahle *
the manner cf appreciation of tirie-;e:vi-;};e13.ee”iz: 33′::y flew dees
not indicate perversity.’ _
the evidence tyeve at a finding of fact and when
there is St1_l«)Vs4fan;’éiz’a_1′:L””qJuestion of Law arising for
eonsifierafiofi in the present appeal, I do not see any reason
. theiiifilgments passeé by the Courts below.
appeei being devoid of merit stands
diSppsed~0ff_3£6 order as to costs.
Sdfé
}u&gé
VV J’I’/ {Isms