Ramappa @ Jayaramappa vs Rangappa on 27 May, 2011

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 8ANGALORE;"'----.>

DATED THIS THE :>.';?"" DAY' OF MAY, 20: :

BEFORE

THE EQNELE MR.JUST1CEH.N. xgg¢;AE¢:ea;«m: _  I

RSA No.362/;p___g_

BETWEEN :

. RAMAPPA ca) JAY,:xRAm4.%g'*EA 

Ex}

S/C) BYRAPPA E   ,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS   5 '

NAGARAJAPPEAE" ":;;fl    
S/O BY'RAPPgX'   "    »
AGED ABOU"1:35__\f_EARS  

BQTH ARE  _
VILLAGE, S-RIRAAI:/:EL.:RAV E.«.;_>E,L3 '
HOSADURSA frAL.E}:§  V

._RAN{i}APsuP:A V
_S:'.QBANQRGANTHAPPA

 BEQTEASEB BY HES LRS

 

 

 



3} DASAPPA
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT =15 YEARS

b} I*iAN{§E\/IANTHAPPA  
SIC} RANG;/3\i3PA I
AGED ABOUT  YEARS

2:} SHIVAPPA
S/0 RANGAPPA
AGED ABQUT 30 YEARS

ALL ARE. AGR1cL:1.TuRi':§:Ps"   
R/AT KALKEREVv1LLAGE'  A
SR1RA1\iiPUR;i\<.f{'O._BLIP;_' " ' ,
HOSADURGA    '- 
P1N:577   '  ;.RESPONDENTS

(By sris_C.mvA.xf}<;U:\»i'AP, F(3R.i!¥ivi:a &b
Pu; 3ERVE1j;!1_–V –

THIS PEA’ is OP CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT &~.._DECPEE~._DA<E'ED 30.10.2004 PASSED IN
R.A,N0.1GQ/'G1 ON THE: FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE {SR.DN.}

i.P1QEAP:E~EE,1_%E-r§M1Ss'zN.¢:3__.f2'HE APPEAL AND CGNFIRMING
THE §UDGMEN'I'~,_AND DEGREE DATED m.04.199:? PASSED

IN-.03 Na. {F84/éé:1;'x:3§ \% THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE {JRDN}
HOS AEERG-A';~«

THIS ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE

EEAJET DELEEJERED THE FGLLOWING;

in

[UDGMENT

This appeal is dirczcied zigziinst ih&_j:1dg3:.z21<:_I)t :3.s1_:i€i'<§<::<r:%fL'. i._;i’:’:{j d€CfC3Vda;t¢dV 3G’:«:?C:’I2QQ”£:
in RA. N0. 100/2001 passszdfiby Cmi1…j’ggegeugsenigxr«niyigjfiny at

Holalkere dismissing the suiut’**Qf–. pIai}fii1.£’f’. §:3:_ da::_cEarati0:1 and

injunction.

2. Appe:_i[1211i’é.=sA ‘aEé;:;__ :he.,_’pE;1Vi1;tif§s__ respondents are the
defémdants. En this j11dg:’:i<:{14iVfofwfggittvenience the parties are r<:£'<:1'red

to their status béfgré theVir§214i'C0:1&1;§.;V

» It iSv13£’i::”d.i§pu:e {hat lands; in survey No. 107 nlcasuring 8

ac::res’–1A guV;3taVv::§mnc1’1t fc>:’fei{ed {he 3211133 in me yes}?

-E 9–3′.E?33′.”S::bsequE:mIy KI3 by name Kzzriyzigspzi

“g:;:i§§he lam} 1*:3x*s3:12::: &§§(§ gig): 81:: Land reiézzszsii in his i1:2x::§. The Séliéi

‘J:

4. The: dezfendzmts crusted appczimtlce before :;h%3..T::*%:2}V =E’,§>L:.zit

and filed wriitexi s;1:a£€mem inter alia c<)nt<:nLjiing.t,hatj. {figs t’-.s{i§:;s>.g}f’ f

Kctmpa Rangappa by mama: Hc3{{c Ka1*i;;:’pp_z2 :1nd S_a:mz1pp2i_mid acre}:

of land in favour of one Balappzz daied
3(}.O9.E9=i16 and the det’enc121n’:Te’iHEV of
Balappa are in possermgn of side: of
survey No. E07 zind §§):V7}2JEi”§”;£}$V.:§;~;7\.Fji;«3inm+fS are nm in
passézssion of SHKEXCCV 8 acres 1 guma. Q11
these grouncié of plaintiffs. On the
basis; fer the f0EIwing isszzes; and
Z1dditiOI13’I; i5’i#l*l_(:3S xC%’i3i<i €:rat..i<)n.
' V. – ' 3-.Wh€:t,hfie:' t1£éVVfj'}'é£i«f1tii"i's prove their actual possession and
' 0%" suit property as an date of wii'?

J further §)I'{}\?C’ alleged 0bSiF{.}€.;1Ei{)I} by the

. .g%%3t’€12<§2az1i'v?

, %ii[“‘_« For what 0rd:::’ 0:’ d<:<:rc:3'}'

Ae;%«:iiiimi:a:% Issues

6

E. Whether the gtshzimiffs; pmve {heir ownership 0’vT.cE’~

suit pmpe:*{y’?

ii. Wheiher the eiefehdanks: prove §¥1.atb_they_-héiVe’*§e:’fee¥;e(iV

their title :0 {he souéhem p{)fE:i'{)§1 ;{ez:a:: e’;x:I,_ehi_i>f $§t::{[}{.)«

vflgn?

acres in {he suii p1′:>perty§[V_h§’ {“):I”‘v-.’:I(V’:E’»»<';'.,I"§§€f"
iii. Whether the valueatien of »§§;_i';1}pr;§eI’– fee
paid is ins;u:*:>;c:e;1:«§?” _ ‘h T’ .

iv. Whethef _”:1″i§3 x fhr relief of

dee1aré.:ic}hft{> suit ‘property f–

U:

J7;

. (D
“”1
D
ham’
‘2

?;h€f~V’T§”i’Z1} C.Q{I:>I__ {he plaintiffs examined three

witnesses as P«.W’._1*T.Q marked E:<::mine‘:*:%.}”–«gigndi”zieiécumentary evidence held {hat the phiihtiffs