And:
ofForefis,
VT : (:By'Sfi 3.3. mm, HOG?)
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA'L{)l'2_E;': j "
DATED THIS THE 5"' DAY OF AUGUST %j ~.. . Av {ff
BEFORE V h
'1"HEH0N'BLE' MR..m'sr1c1=: S,_.ABb€_LJC;VAZEER'.. 1
Wlosrikajanna, _ '
R!aGottigereviIIa'ge,"_««._V'V-=71' V
Uttarahalli Hobli, Baizgalore somh*ra1uk,
my 3,; M.
.. Appellant.
V n Nationai Park,
AnekalTaluk,
Bangalore District Respondents.
This Regular Second Appeal is filed kinda’ ‘
againm the judwm and decree dated ”
R.A.No.174/2006, etc.
mm..;$mWm~
the Court delivered the following: ”
Thong the matter is B3: the
leatmd Coumei for an
2. The 1 56/1997 on the
tile ofthe Rum! Distrid,
Bangalore iéhe defendants in the said suit.
For the gf are referred to by the ranking
V
3: nmteroftbe suitis Iandmeawring4 acrw
4.4’3$:’g~1r\tasA. “sy.No.1o9 of Gottigere village, ifttarahaili Hobli,
South max. The plaintifi’ filed the aforesaxfi suit for
‘ %4ga»,.:;%amnon*V ‘ rim she is the absolute owner in poswsion and
K36
o-
enjoytnemofthewitsciwdulepropextyandformaorderof
injunctiota mining’ the defendants, their agmts or anybody
ciaiming under them fiom interfering with her
wjoyraent of the suit scimne pmpexty. It is the
plaintiff that tk suit scheélle progeny was
Ex.P2 by the Revenue Depmfi.
made in her name and that she ~§r{
resped ofthe said prope11y.vShze mm 191.9.
Bank, Bangalore, in order to deireiggp mg ma um she
has discharged the gaid:Aji<m filed his
writien to the Forest
plaintifiat ofthe rivai cozttentions
ofthe parties, tim ismes as follows:
b A I mm MMMM ";¥'.f'pr0vestlm1 she is the absolute
and enjoyment of flze suit
' ' 1'
«C
_.1-'a.ye~ of the plaintiff. Documems Ex.P1
and docttmems Ex.D1 to Ex.D3
% Mg beau}: mark. sefixin his evidence. The trial Court on apprecia110n°
ofthe mes, has held that plaintiff is not the
4
2. Whether tlrm description ofthe scheduie property is
not correct’?
3. WE1ethe1’thein1erference alleged istrue’?
4. ‘Mwther the valuation and “is
5. Whatlmr the plaintifi’ is emiaecakru:xm§%re§§r%¢rM%’%
6. Whether tlxe_ plai11ti¥_?i””
7. .. . . ‘ . Q; , V
4. The pluaT ‘ , , as P.Wl and two w1tnesses’
in their evidence. On behalf cf the
Rx
owner ofthe said pmpmy. It is my held an: the
Ex.P2, grant certificate is a bogus docuxmnz. However,
Court foundthat the plairIl;ifi’ was in possession ofthe L
favour. Feeling aggrieved by the said ‘:5
the extent of rejection ofthe prayer S
the said propmy, plaintifi’ M
before the Fast Track The
me: appellate ‘jm%;@4;m. Feeling
aggrieved by the 5:54 second appeal.
5. substantial question
of law at the c–ft3;ié appeal:
_ “”1Nhethe:’..i;z’the fins and circumstances of the
%k k% the mm beiow”wm justified in denying the
w’ré§i*efa3£ to the ignoring exhibitsw
% ;§2andp3?r~%
Rx
md the grant ce1tificate–Ex.P2 is a bogus cmtificate. Both
Courts have oonounvfily held that plailfiif £3 not the owner A4
propa1yinqtImion.Nodm1bttheuia1CourtIzasheldthgt. ‘ ‘
was in possession of the suit sckmle
Forest Depatj has adion as
Kamataka Forest Am, 1960, and an
pla.imifl’ to vacate the said fii{-.d m
dismissecl ‘I’hereafler_, . % ofthe
property on 5.7.2903, fig; appeal.
7. I have’ argumetits of flue lwmd
Cqumel 31 mi: the materials placed on
3. tisié ofthe mum’ ‘ffttm the land in mm’ was
‘ t:y_.’theVV’R..evenue Depufi as per Ex.P2 on 19.7.1979.
the case ofthe %§ndams that the cmire Sy.No.i09
10
IO. Idoawtfindanynmitinthisappeal. M
dimnissed. Ne w.
BMM/582008