IN $92 HIGH coum as KARNATAKA AT BAN§Ai_ORE % i mares mxs we 24"' my OF JULY, 2999 % T BEFGRE "me HONBLE muuswica N.w}agRk% §,s$ANo.1362/2007 (Iik:;1:; L %;%§i}'l'Wi§E}N: 1.
{jérekandi Vishwanathappa ‘ v
S/o.Basa§;:pa .
Agad 278 years: 1 =.
Occ: Accmznts Qfiidfif {P_{:r’;d.}
2. U.V.Basava.IajA___ ~.:;__ _ ..
S /o.Vishwa:iat£1%:?ppa ‘
Aged 56 years ._ — ‘
O-cc: Engineer, 4.
3. {.}.V.Prakash .
S] e:).vishw;:1i:2J.happ9; . _ VV
” ….. .. 9
{;’.§:(:: ‘”£;3;gi1:&eif _
A11 r’:%:’sideI14ff;:=-.V bf – . .
Sri Refiuka Bxteifigieffi, i~’,£:i.Koad
“”:>swanagc.re~5_ss1 .3..«:;>7 .3 APPELLANTS
‘ (,§.5f.%’:V :;~’.~e%”, %’;TP.:~1;:i¥, ;*1dv.,
/-”
%»./
– 3 .,
JAI3_,I3£Lfi§WEm§_”1′
‘Finis is the defendants’ secrttazixd agpeai
COI1(Z:1}.I”I’€fi§ findings recorded by the
the defenfiaiilts have been tségfgngftliiy’ ” fi{i€~giOsSsss.ed”.
during 131$ pendency 01′ t.¥f1ea =.suitT
pfiaintiff is entitled ta mafiiéatgoty ‘ 11:1-“_”:L’,Ev:1~1i’.1.C’3T.if.’:If’1″A’lA”«:.1_’LV£i1=’v ggsxrft:
back in possession ‘€;}”1Ci€:I’ of .$p¢r::i;t”ic Kefiaf
Act, 1963.
AV.2%;–vT£+f<§'rvj.thé1iiyanyésé 0t*"c«;«n'{zeI1ience, the parties are
reiézfafd "£6 33: Vaff é'=:'f_éfi'5:_r14ed its in the origérxai suit-
3, "i'}1e Si:1bje é,:i: .n:1atte:r of the suit is a shop
A§;Vj;4i(:,§1*;i:%§?}¢8:VA'be,;s:ri11g Door No.65?/BA, measuring 13.25 fix
._ _sif.%fi::{teci at Mandipet in vavangere City.
§_)'€f$I}.{ii3.1I}1:'; is the awner of the said property. The
Adffenéiéints lmsed the saié progeny ta that pigsjntifi' an a
"'..iii0I'it.£1£y rem: sf ;<s.2,{.)o0j– in the year 1984.
' ' '"'Subseque:1tiy, the rant was enhanced to K3.2_.90(}/–~ per
menth. Qomplainiflg that on 21.4.3998, taking
advantage of the piaintiffs absence, the defengients
came with the eupperters tn the suit scheduie
opened the muck to the suit seheduie
thrown out the entire afiiicles Zr.-:1""'i:i'1e. K 'V
suit: property. On cemifig to keen?
giaimiff rushed back
Thereafter, on 24.4.. e:1efmǤ1ec;~ee of
permanent injunetiofi’ from
interfering wit3′:«T:. f2eaeefi1l”«p6*$se$_$£=3n and enjoyment
of the__$1i._it-
__-4. Thev .d,ei’e1’1dé:dits entered appearance and
V’ –. eeeeijeixdeed has voluntarily surrendered
of the property {:11 38.4.1998 as he was
iiI3_e§£e~ gi-ay the arrears 0f rents of &<e.S2,i30{)/-.
_"i*her.efei'e, they have contended that the plaintiff is net
E; peesessien ef the promrty and therefere they
u ….i3rayed for dismieeai of the suit. in fact by an.
application filed for intarim erders, an order ofstatus
que was passed. However, the defenda3*1is'V§Jjg<:ii;::§ia%:d
defendants No.4 irl possession of _uSi:;it:VA./.:$<§he€1Vt:i§:»
preperty as a tenant, and th€}5;_8}T'€_C'21%,§ifi g" .i31;$si;1_e: 9.s. 7.
on coming 110 knew 33301.3: tfie_ v."i:1duc*:;i7<},f§,V':4'<$f V ifie '4*»h'
defendant, the piaintiff ffir
amanciment of thcé E18 has baen
iiiegailfir' dispQsse$$e€:i}:~. to be
amended . géfsiteihsnt was filed.
5.: 1 I;’:«_} –.*3f0f§$ai§iVVVV’j)ieadings, tha Trial Court
f”ra_n:;’c:d’ me ~.Vf{:x%}eW’i;1:’g”.f0ur issues and twe additionai
issttés: « V
1. %3}iéf.her the plaintiff graves that he is
‘ V the tenant; under defendant on the date
of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff pmves that
defandant is trying to evict the plairztifi’
from the suit scheduda property
-5-
Without acioptirxg the due process of
law?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled f{1!I’:
reiicaf as sought 12):’?
4. What order or de<:rw':'_,
Additional Issues:
1. Whether the ‘-..;§rovee;’V:’ ‘
passing the order
the defendazt Nrjki defeiidaiits
1333? L
2. ‘W:t §c:ftfi%§%::’ pxaigitiff is entitled far
” 4n2ar16iéti;<:if§i§3f1j1:ii:{3tioz1 as sought fer?
fix'). ___t:he gjiaintiff, he examineci fzimsell;
;PWV1..,_fi€4.§é§§aJz1§11ed two wimesses Pwsjz and 3 anti
p1'ori«iiCedV "§V1c::<:1m:;eI1ts as per i:':x.§'1 to £18. 03:1
. i;}ei"1a.iu)"f"-::f"'t§1§ixdei'Endants, third defendant: was examineci
iI.,3\£v'..3.. 'Tiiey also examined three Witnesses as LEW 3.2
9.
xx/i
to 4′ ‘1’i”1-5:3; produced 19 decuments,
as EXBI to D3}. A 2 ”
7*’. THE Trial Court on ap;}§féC§a£iG§; ” 9 7
era} and Cumenta1’y €Vi»(if.3I}{)€:;'(}§%”£T£§COI’giV.’k”i€;§(f
plaintiff has proved that su11d€#VrV
the dsfefldants in :’é Spe(:’i_:” Scfiédfiié property
as on the date’ of threw out the
snare aI”c1′(:_i6’駒;;j[£§%.i’ i:h??: the suit property.
£+’11rtt1rcT,; ‘ has proved that, after
passiflg’ §.’.1’%$.N0«3, defandant No.4 was
iflc£”a3ct${:i”~«i:i:¢*déihfiéfiiiié 1 to T3 in the suit propemy and
is entitied to mandatory
‘ i$1_}!1r1{:;€i0f3;’ gr restaration of the passession of the
.’ :=*.y;?:?7:%:{er:i1_A1,{é; ‘ipfapertys Thus, it deem:-,::i the suit as prayed
far. ~~ fi;.geved :by the said judgment am} decrees, 1318
A ” ,$i é’1i7eI”:da11£s preferred the regular appeai, The appeiiate
(§34:mI1:, an appreciation of the entire: evidence on I’€iC(}I”‘C§
and after farmuiatiilg the points for Cansideration, held
-3-
that the findings mcorded by the Trial are
}1J.Sfiifi€d and therefore it ciisnfissed the ap~§é:ai;AT..:
helé that the agpeaj itself is >
suit is filed under Secfion i.zeiié%
against which 110 appeal t:h{§
said gudment of mag %AdLe1’e:1§a1;:s are
in second appeai
8. .€;..}_:4″‘ ‘a}g3pel£an£s, assaibng
the a:_1″ff%;x”t'”1gi’£u”1.~é;t’1ts ciecree: of the: Courts
be£oxa%V;’.éC{)ntfin:éit§fi§L«.%Vti1.g§§t*~-fizfaen ihe piaintiff was not in
possession fin _i’hcé’-._ of the suit and when he
$1ii§*e:;tfi€rr;& tl§e”‘;Jo$session on 18.4.1998, the suit for
fi;1ji1n§:t§;31:”3:I_1{i. the suit for recavery 91″ peasession under
0f the Specific Reiief Act was not
mai£iT£,2fij:1able. He canterzdeci that the ijourts below have
?3″Gpsriy apgreciateci the material on recoré and
% .. __’§;£1us have committed serioua error in decreeing 13:16 suit
of the piaintifi’.
..}{_§..
seeking for possession and convemtmg the _a
suit under Sectien er of the Specific
amerzdment was permitted. ‘flue V4./.1°§.ie’d. u
immediately after the plaintifi
defemdarzt was inducted ééite . of
therefore it is a ciee_r…easeV.e-ti1e:{§’-the beefl
iliegafly disposseesew of the suit.
The yerson ijiepossessed, can
maintain of Section e of the
Sgeeifise instant case, the tenant was
enti{£ed tQ4’get’haefi pee~seeSioI1 by the defendants. In
fac%:_;1a”gejI}s€: .;§ i1e¥.m..en’£ and decree in a suit under
the Specific Reiief Act, 1963, 1’10 appea}
before the appellate Court was not
_ and therefere the iower agpeilate Cami”:
H H K juéfified in dismissing the appeal of the defendants.
_§§_,
in that View of tha matter, i dc: nq£._”i’1t§£i f’~ai:y
substantiai question of law far CQI1si(£eréit.ioz: ‘_T’iri t;hi s V’
appeai which merits admission.) Aé Ce:’C£ingiy, ‘ is
dismissed ai; the stage 31’ Va;:i_1411i$é10:é;’itse1i”, ”