rmwwmfi Mn” NMKEWMKMRH WEWH mwwwa. RMKEVIWEWRM WEWW LUUKE UP EWIKKNRHFQIVKK HEUW LUUKfi WP RHKNKEMRK “E931 VWUKE W?’ fiflflwfliflflfl HIKTW MUUE
IN TEE HIE-I COURT OF KARNATAICA, BANGAI.0I-Vl.’E___
mama THIS THE 02′” DAY my Armzx.
BEFORE
THE HO!-I’BLE rm. JUSTIC’£:”?’§*5 fislp1=%1§;1M{a§a4.=; Vt
REGULAR szcomr: AEPEAL No.;’2.o §9 oza»”v’2′;::¢6;V 3
nmxnonnwow-lumen-nnxulun
s/0 SHIV5e£;1′;HGA§EEfiN.3¥ P53-38293
AGED A3€:tr1t?iJ’i4_9 .135,
rum: _ v:_I;z.zs.sE;
Bxzxeati.-:1.§E»—l~;¥;)2Lf: ..
Nzmsmgtjn V
zrmcm ‘z:;rs:§’Ia::c:r:-“.fi?.13fi1
‘ A ” APEELLEHT
my 311:: fir» mron H/’5 mnsmmazx
V Asscxrgmrfas, A3333; %
A.§.*3’_’9″._ ”
1 sMi”~:.B§smnm
$7/£3 MAIWJEVAPPA
“as-1-:9 ABOUT 63 was
sic: zmmnzvapm
Atsm ABOUT 43 “:35
J
vnwuww wmwar-msruwra ‘yarn
wuu1Ivan’uar”‘wmWM%7′!¢ rmmm-u mawwnm WW mnnavmamnm Niww muuém Ur” Mmmmmm NEWM L€.JUK§” U3″ %.fiW§MflW’flKA Hififi COUF
3 rcanrnasawa
5/0 MmLLANNm
Aaan ABQUT 73 $23
4 I4fiHP:.I.’3EV2%PPA
Sf!) IELDRPPA
ILGEI) %.BOUT 63 YRS
ALI. ARE Rnsxnmrrs cm’
WJJDARAHUNDI VILLAGE…
BILIGERE HGBLI ‘-
zmuamscm TALUK ;
MYSDRE DIsTRzc:r_-5713:.-1, _ ‘
. . ,, 5ts’3Pm~’r’31~rrs
(35: ma: :9 VJ.’r§:g::g;h§a;,..”T;é.;r3v’:’_£*o1i::;éiu: 19 rm-msm,
ADV E03.” 1%; ‘
THx%s%v._fi:3a M Is ‘*%§?:zi;E2.’§V”%”;iks 100 cm AGAINST arm
Jzmamnr 2§i*i3′.\._ I>E¢1=l.fiE i:iA.’rm::: 3.4.2006 955331;: 11-:
6_rS)’2.0o3AA 1111 –THE FILE or zm”. cxvrn JUDGE
=_c9gI1’BVct~I.~.,§’«.’s{VJ1~12c, Nm~iJI€kHG'{II>, 91331331143 mg
AA;’.39E_:;t ‘A éfgaasrsraumca mm: Jan-aamrw mm DECKER
Darn: v122:,’:oTV.2eo3 rasssan m 38.160. 592199′: on:
or TI-IE PS£L.CIVII. JUEGE ($3.93.),
THIS APPEAL CDHING QN FOB. ABMISSIOH ‘IBIS
fDAY; THE CUURT DELIVERED TEE FOLLOWING}:
J
UUDGHEKT
The appellant herein is: the plazr.intj§:f:’: “L:’;:i,;is,.
0.S.N.592′ 19?}. The suit: in ”
tiled seeking far at V’
permanent injunction againfitg
txzom intertesring with= ‘f:.3;9 hvksighjzi
plaintiff ta use vf;21_e nt.ex~E:x::r§!?;f:’« Ehgauqi2″”th’é suit:
5’; wrwwwnu men Iwwniwmtm%mm Wsmmfifl wuwwmfye .§_..§w” mmmwmw-fiww NEW” bvwaw W? KJRKEWJMQWWKR Wiww flwwflfi ‘W?’ fiflfimfiififlfl Niflwm Kfluzfiwfifi E)?” @@KNM§M%§ Miiéfl {QQXWJ
‘A’ schedule water ‘»4’:éz:e the Lower
Appellate cm: ‘in, s;.V.”:m iz¢.6512oo3. The Lower
iT._Ouri:'””v~-after rs-appreciating that
iidismissed the appeal by its
, ,w.judgmgfi£ Lagtéak 03.04.2006. Thg plaintiff
. . ‘_ t;1i1§::a1’c§x*4t; ; <21 aiming to he aggri wed by the
-A.’:t:;9.Lc:i_<:A1;:.;'1: 'z':*~A.an*:. judgments of the Caurtn below is
V. this Court.
2. The case of the plaintiff befere the
Trial Cauxt was that the ‘A’ sahsdula pztopaxry
Ja
4-
n
w.»ww- “wn:ewor\wr&W’3°y_’ W» ta\:wr’w«».vawWmKm’ma&w%. mmwwmm wwwmm WWW” WMWEWMEMNM WEWM MWMNI W? fiflfimflfifififl 535%??? MKJUKF id?” %MWi%MEM%m {“|Efi3?2§’1 (_,'{}LHq
15 as kharah land measuring 15 guntaes in
Sy.No.215!2 of Eahwaragowdanahalli and
is a water canrsa in the said
from North to south. According» ”
plaintiff, an the western
cmnrsa, the ‘B’ esc11adul¢5?’;;_;:op¥éir._’§:’§?
the plaintiff is said Sy.Ho.215/2 which the
eastern side;,_ thg… property
halanging ;i{£s*””éitzzata. The
arzm-meg i d-a8§ita the
p1aint;é:ff__ can anly make use
of the ‘Awaits: “V.<V:.*;if’E to reatzain the defendants
“ijsuch act ac; that the plaintiff can use
T the water caurzse fez: his cultivation.
J
. Wvwfilafllflfi Wu” umnmmmmm W-WW-muwm yr–nmnwnmmn-nawn M-.mm war mum-mm-mm–M-a%.9wuuwmMn~ amxmmmmu mm” t.-.?mmH” wk %MmMfiX&¥£M.”M’%%é”i cam
3. The defendants on being served with
the suit summons, have admitted with x:¢gaa;.;:’¢1_ ‘?;§;>
the nature or ownership of thfl pr:p«a:_;j”;’ti4%I,V§:.’__:
Schedule ‘E’ and ‘C’ pr-vpuxtiea
fact that the scshadule ‘A’
maaauring 15 gunteus era:-1__ thiw_v.”‘wa.te.xC.
Hawevez, the cantention the tdefieziddigta 13
that the p1aintif::E “:%’– hds any cause
approached the_ T::ia;.l…:.(;~ou’$ff;f.,L a5iiti :i.i:&reforn the
suit requimfs _Vi’.~§’
4; j based on the rival
cntentie_n a~% three issues for
its g;o:ta.a.idear2:t;_Vi’c§zu thoreattar, framed thxae
“igsau.ee .
.izfliL:’i__t’;.§tder to diaclmzga the burden cast
the rpaitiea, the plaintiff examined himself
and got marked the document: at Ex3.Pl
9’2. The defendant No.2 examined himself as
fUW-1 and exhibitad the dcactzmenta at Exs.D1 to
£36. A Ccurt Corzmisaioner was also appointed
J
“Y
W….,w.m.M.W WWW W- mwammmimmm mwm uwum wr wmwnmw/W mam Cflum” W” mmmmm EMIWEME mmgé
16
with the above clarifications, the appeal
stands disposed of.
»3’£’:*’-
No order an to coata.