I IN 'me mesa cause? or KARNATAM AT fiANGA$..€JRj.EV., mass THIS THE 15*' am as mvemaaa 2Qi5 i -- VRESENT _M_ Ti-:5 z-::r:r4*3:.e MR, JUSTICE Ama t:Z§:S53fi£;1_:fixLf' %'
A5’9″k% X
ms Hoaam MRS.JU8TICE.v:Vj_B ‘§f_I’%;§§34¥i3:’i%B§JA
aesuwz ms? a2.é_%:5p9mm? % W
3 EN: 1
wncmvnnse
‘£’A:.A43UrmA I-§i’.¥5LI; *
SHIK&RI?1£RTfii_UK * ,
5HIf¢!€3G.A 915%» 5??.433j”%%A ‘
8YI’T’8!~1ATADH3’.KAR1
SRLCHAN NAVEER’s=’&_£}EESHEE*f£ti€EF§»L£)RA SWAP-§3GALiJ
Tmmzsz, st-iIKAm:m ‘— ‘Tam: ”
SHIMGGA -. S77 #33
REF’ ‘aw !*G_\fi°EI1§..OF.ATTGRPi’E–‘f+¥OL£IER
SRI.VHA’G»*;B!-iEJ$i1fi!i arm azmvm, Awxmon
‘ ” ‘ …APPE£.i.AN’§’
% jggv sai:mvA§§¥€:> ¢sk%1:éé.?:1L, ADV}
_ 4:c;é’.A:¥»g;a éfiwgaakamx
Toam52,.gsfi:xmzPu2 — TkLiJI(
“51HI¥9’§i3C5fis §?I5TRICT
‘REP .13’! I755 SECRETARY
‘ ~T . V M _GRisE¥1£i’PA£§CHAYATHI
._ S}-IIKARIPUR. — nwx
}§;HI!*éGGA 9:312 57? 433
“RES POE} $58?
(av s-us SHIVAPFA & A3573.)
mm mm 3 $11.59 mmm semen 95 as cm: .a;e2A1:e.s%rFj’mTE~~-LT
Jummerrr ma ca.-sense mama 2u.a2.2an:r PA$SE§)x_1’§: as–% K
:~4¢.33;199s on THE PM as THE cI\fIL_3.13.E’2€5E (3a.;m§’;} ssgmak ‘
ssxsuzssm; ‘me SUE?” ma BEC£.ARA’¥IOPsi ‘men -:’PER.%i.%?€’EflT
zuzunmon. * ‘
‘mzs RFA cosaxm 0:; ma waqxssiba;”‘TH:sT”‘ii.§*¢_V_V.A3:ir3
GUN3AL, 3., €35£.NER§E? THE FGLLOWIHG2» V
The unsuccsasfu! pmintiff $33’ questioning
the judgment and Triai Judge in
as M33/19% d;ec:ae§%A’*%%a§:% the graund that na
dacumenla that he has title ta ‘aha
2. Vt!9i’eV.V.. ::::;£:;__::_._I__:f§~e cf judgment, parties wauld be
re:”fés1fa’§d:VEa Vas ‘?f}ié¥f rank in Ewe Triai Ccsurt.
leading 15:: filing af thim appeai can ha
* *4«sijt;»m:_1’:ari5eé asfnfiawsz
” ‘fi2§»:§§:intifi filed a suit chiming that they are the awners
” in 53; $5313.?!) to an extent :31’ 15 scam 14 gamma
‘TjLv.:_«”§’nz§§::iing 2 acras of Kharab Band. Accarding ta we pia§r:u’fi’, the fl
3
entire extent bmongs ta than piaintiff and the
gurstas have been re-grarzbazf in favour af one
wife cf Chan:-sahasava Shastri under -:
as per at-der datw 1G.&4.1999. 332;: fi1vée9r2′,_ §!’.ae c§fi–€§g”¥;jé§
in pussesfiian :3!’ the suit property 1A}”¥”§a::t.’_”a«.’.’ls_V thé~.§§§ja§%;ia§Vfi’:§§VV:-acres
163 guntas inckxding 2 actgmm./gf §ia :’n–d ba’¥§§’£1ag # to the
plaintiff mutt and that there a:f§_§”‘i§;§’ c®v§ft’;;v%:’garden am, in
the suit mzhadufe that dwé nama
of piaintiff has recards and they
have been A’ It £5 their case that
dafendant – titlad ta flue property. It
is their fur§iwr_ca§é “.;%j;§’t.”‘airft::e’.£..?:e name of the gtaintiff appears
ir2:’ .;t;VI’.1§9a raétzfd fights agfiéaii as other dceumants, they hava
: titie V
H Vv . 4. .c§:a*:fendant ensured appvaaranca and fified wrmn
infiéraiia caniaerréirsg that the suit itsaif is not
and the piaintiff has rm authnréty In file the suit.
“vshuid Furfizar cantend that the suit schedule prom:-ty
of 2 acrw of I-Gwarab land and that fang back the I-Gzsarabfli
/
‘
4
iand is afiaanamd and réce miii has basin canstrucbead, Hgnca,
contended that there % no Kharab iand availabfe in
scheduh praperty and ‘Ft has tn be consMere_§3V. §’§’~V.’.i’;%z£:-j:._._”.
agricufturat tend. They have furfimer fianiegi th’z§!’.””‘:::;’V:”.v_;’s_.v. ‘e”é.’.’r$’_ifs;a;t’r’v::V “‘
martian ef the Sy.No.7C3 ifi re~gE”a’nta$_fiA ; “f+v;V::Sra:£;i’§* ‘L_L’*—..6;’.j
Channabasamsrm. They have £hat_ ?i5;:}£a«iz3,t.’«i’f is
claiming the Gav Theme {and beic{§Ejfi§_ t!f.e”«iia:fi:;:%iant as
I-(hamb land.
5, ofithghgmf %§igaaa’a’gs,%2ha lmmed Triaf Judge
framed me ficxfiqwifig’ ” h
“1. pg-ave his em-sership
_ ov&r.ii?:!'{e suit as aflwed?
the piaintiff prme his sewed
5p’ns’is;afiVié3:é”_’vs::?s¢iigV:”‘fi’xe suit property as an tha date 91′
_ tiwaamtit gs’ aflégerd?
2 .. ” Does the plaintiff prove the afbgad
‘infbsrfsrmce by the defendant?
/’
X’
as. Whether the suit *3 pmperfy vaiued? fl
S
5. Whether the pzlaintifif is entittw
refaefs of declaration and {armament injunctéézih .33:
prayad? 4′
6. What Qrdm’ af€¥oc:*ee?’5f A
6. In suppart :3? ma plaintVifF’s.Vca$e;, vfna.we’éf”éE_j’attar§ney
halder of péaintjfi’ is examined as qaiécamined
the Court Cammimaner as E;_csf5,.F.1″ are rnarl-(ad an
bahaif :3f the: plaintiff. % en; behaif as me%demdarg¢, Secramry of
Panchayat is exarpini-afi are marked.
7′. firialf;2§d§§”«’.§g§v§n§VV’regard ta tha paucity of
avidemze was é’fV.tfia% vhf’ has failed as prove 61:13 to
the prepwartyy
-VVLeafn«}sé :C«§unse! appearing fer the piaintiff submits
thi6.«.’f’a£:t.vjfl!i.§é%:_V..’fi §e name 94′ the plaintiff appmm in the
_ _: _;.e’§§’n’sin§.:a riawréig fiffd indax of land, it is fie be prwumed that the
‘?.p’¥§§4Aifi€:iffAAVV6’¥i3~ift E in passessiien of the suit pmperty. He fmfixer
” ‘.¢j:a_:jis§en:A§a3 that they are in passassior: at’ we suit mhaéuie
far a Eatzg periad. Hence, that by itsefl’ is sufficiwt tn
Hold that they have ride to than progeny. /2%
. J – 2
o
u.
5
9. L&mw Cazmsai appmring for the defandant
submits that in thus absence of any document cf title,__ the
quwtien of granfing the retiaf as saught far in the suit C_3G#:.$– f!'{¥§Z
arise and hence supparts the judgmerrt arid dacmgs’
the iearnad Triai judga
10. The fofltawing pant would af§sfe7 fw_::”r’:
this appeai: _ % _ __ V
“Whether in View of R:ac¢r§VV:¢5f.R§gL_¥jts §findv.In.di§ax
csf !ar1v6′,H ¥’eaVir’f’:1_va:«§ xii;4’i’:’§§{»..:’_’JudA§ié”Q35 justified in
d?sm£ssi~r:g “the 5:331?’ igttffi?”
11. Qiéréaed, ran:-d cxf réghfi [Form i’~£o.V) in
__ This danumerzt weufé show ‘that: the suit
schedLh!3″”–preiVégm:§fifg in the name of Srtchannavaara
Gut af this entire area an extent 2!)
_ ‘i3Ta4_£4£eh’ésbw far tha puraosa of canstruction of rice: miii as
‘érdsr cf the Assistant Comrn£ss£onez’ an 07.66.1952.
index at’ land (Farm Nc.VI) in raspact of S3: I’¢a.}’Q.
has this docunmnt, mite! extent of Sy..No.?£.3 Ta 15 acres
fl
LZ’
‘?
14 Qantas: Hawever, are sxwnt ef Kharab Iané is ShGWQV’.%§.§B
nii and the entire 3.5 acres 1-6 guntras 52; described _
Time and again, it is hats that flue entries in the
do not confer rifle. Indeed at best, 53:1′:
respect of entries in the rsvenue récvrdsi ”
12.. It is alsa noticad that dq:”§i’:ug ‘L_:cx”zi:@-5 exaflfi1’§nati%-gran, PW:
sates that the suit schedulfi Vprcfiarik’ 9 aches 10
guntas is Enciusive vgcre=;§: ” which is in tha
form ef is that tha said property
does not beléésng much as way back in the
year 1952, the u’As55is’taVV¥9:si:v_ Ci..”s;:*§1′.*’A;’??:fssie:1er has granted pernziasiar:
f<§v:r~vs9nve_&f§§:é:a:'§j,iAV' waam of the View that izha question af
gré'r:fit'e§ "rslAEae.§:"ir§'~.Af§w9ur 9!' the pkintiff in the absence cf
L..§fgcunw7nt'<:'f £:itia'.V«V'afE;:zfi's not arise.
It §_s. na dcxubt 5112 that the teamed anunaei
'i.§:;§§;:@ri§jgL"<–.._A the plaintiff vehemantiy submits that
ior§er's revert worufi shew that they are in ;:sssession.fl
/.
/.-”
8
14. Apparently, five said Commis$i.é’f’!v”1;’t;:£:iT:jée’:’iV§?i’g;_’_itheg ‘
question at’ relying an the Comn*:issiz$’:2ar’f’:-gj~:?sgg.geg’~
arisag _
15. we have pewsegi the :56 passed
by the learned Trial Judge. §’ifisz ‘e:r,a”–.<§f%.f;'%;%'.a}'"%:i§w§'%that this question
:33' granting refief as wught f;::r"1'.:ha abeanca of
any docusnenttzf «:1:":!fiVb'a«r fi'a.' ""¥'3–a'}am constrained to hold
that the judgkngfst by the laarnaé Trial Judge
does mt warrfirdf Acwrdingiyi the appeal is
dis;*:2!s'.<se{:t'.§<. %%%%%
Iudge
Sd/-3
fudge
:=§bgnf–