IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT " A.
DATED ms THE 12" DAY OF AUGUST 2093 % [ V 2
BEFORE M
THEHON'BLE'MR,JUSTICE._S'. % % = %
REGUIAR SECOND APPEA;Ig 2w).67%x21:a__a;_;
Between:
I Shivanna - V
S/0 Late Marilingappa
Major 1 'V V' '
W/0
Major*--._ " "
3 Lokesha
Sic Z V' "
* ..... V' V
' Ali -vAre..Rio;'Mi:'d«1ahalli Village
Nafijang11dT__ahik -- 571301
Mysore.__Dist:ict Appellants
M :".{B}} 'Sri Mfiwéha, Adv.)
And:
Shivananjanaika
S/0 Late Javaranaika '
Aged About 64 Years I
We Mudahalli Village
Chatra Hobii, Nanjangud
Mysore 571301
This Regular Second of CPC
agaimt the judgment_ and "~vVI;3{i2;'2OO5 in
R.A.No.61/2003, etc. J % % '
This Regularg % for Admission this
day,the Courtdelive.§e:}.fl1§.f»»foIi£§i&€itig: 'a
The in O.S.No.I8l/2002 on
the' fits owe I1;c}1gx«<:..'.(Jr.Dn.)., Nanjanagxd, and the
'V ' ' V' . For the sake of convenience, the parties
_ are 1:6 assigned to them in the trial Court.
2; plaixniiff filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that
-- an right of way over the suit schedule passage
k 953% land in Sy.No.8/3 and for petmaneni injunction
K
Y
restraining the defendants fiem interfering with his use of 1])' A
passage. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the H
possession of the southern pottion of the
Mudatmlli village. He purchased me 'ea'
registered sale deed dated 22.1.1979 We Tin' 3 8%
venckar and that his vendor has of Ever
northern portion ofthe by
him. In the the
purchase of by % sale deed dated
22.1.1979
the plaintiff. on the
said land. Teeyeeze they have purchased the
xgortimem of ire Sy:No.8l3. According to them, the
em ’emf 7 eee&efe ft. wide passage and not 15 n. as
pleading, the men Court has framed
V 1; J Vim: following
\m
‘*1. Whether the piaintifl’ proves that he has got é
right of easement of way over the suit M
2. Whether the plaimiff proves’ of 2 2
over the suit schedule property the
defendants?
3. Whether the plaf ‘ ig of
declarflionas59’~’3~h?.fDr?§:_ ‘
4. mg fine relief of
£13 __for?_’
A’
% ha.FsV””‘§-Qéianaixxed himself as aw: and
have been matted in his evidence. The
cross-examined the plaintifi’ not they have
Y ifiidfegxcté their behalf. The triai Court an appreciation of
the parties, has &creed the suit in the following
‘The suit is hereby decreed without cost.
It is hereby declared that the f
the easemerrtary right of way ovgr the – ‘~ V’ .
property to reach his land in
The defendants uxéid’:=:r~
them are hereby restrainedbya
injunction from izztetferiug ‘use
of the suit 233’» reach
his land i:’aSf;’.,f§’1A{r;”8’fi:’%;iii§:.; A’
<is:~fesi*5.a1Its"Vhéiié'Vchalleng6€¥ the said decree in
R.A.N§.61_;f;26ei§:"»..,§fi file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.).,
::'A'N'a¥njang:xd;..fI11ev_ agapelnate Cami has dismissed the appeal on
' " have called in question the said decree
ma. gm
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I ” V
find any merit in this appeal. The defendants do not L
plaintiffhas right to use 5 ft. wide passage were T
in the suit. In Ex.P1-sale deed, there
right of way was gven on the western side ‘ _
by the vendor of the plaintiff “way
movement of bullock about
the width of the of way is
pmvieed for plaintiff has
specifically epagege provided on the
western side ot’ t’heL is 15 ft. The defendants
hayre opted the plaintiff not have they
so as to negative the claim of the
} plairntiff. ‘en appreciation of the evidence on record
The lower appeflate Court has again re-
the eviaeeee of the parties and has dmiseed the
findingof fact recorded by the courts below
‘ appreciation ofthe evidence on record and there is no
he
perversity, iilegality or irregularity in those findings. The
does not involve any substantial question of law. In the 2 V
appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
BMW-