High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Kurshidbanu vs Mohammadhanif Abdul Rahiman … on 9 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Kurshidbanu vs Mohammadhanif Abdul Rahiman … on 9 March, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH count or  ' 
cmcurr annex»: AT nnmwgp A  "' '
DATE!) 111:3 Tm; 9TH DAY;:§"f': (1
BEEQE   .  'A . 
THE HOWBLE me. Jvsrfics   3

R.8.A. No. 1'§2;s9/adds 1--7qj1:;rVIVé;£c:¢P 85 I5:§.'.'1)"' 

BETWEEN:   V

1.

§{Ui§SH§_I7E3AI5£U._.  _   
W10 M'OD§SSfiE}V._GO§:i-KVHAM  
AGED 54,Y=m_1§s '   E
Q(:C%":'T'§a1£);rsE§%§:)x.£;.gimrezé"'

R/:0 (ITS N:-..V376?/'a%'  '

OLD' MI_SSION« .::oI»1,1§c.I,}::§{.D
KASA1_LGALLi;. EELS "QM --- 390 001

:m:*~..s M2§.L§KA' 

;[ :;:a / Q: MQHAMM,§;:n.HAN1F SHE¥{HA._.E¥
}f«.C}E ; 4*§£,YEfiLRS

'  " u::)Acc;":%1§;v vmmc

. ' "'f3€3'iV'¥~f'*.V;?x3R }v3vV:REP. BY RA. HQLDER
'~.M0,DiNsAB SHAMSHUDDEN GORIKHAN

AGEr',2 58 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, REST «£10»

 APFELLANTS

  (536; SR: QR. PATIL, A[}V,)

J»

'1



[VJ

AMI):

..................m-._.

MGHAMMADHANIF Aamn. RAHIMA2¢»ATHAN_';  "
AGE:MAJOR,{)CC:B¥JS§NESS    -1% '
R/G (yrs N0. 2'?'6'?/7   '

em MESSIGN COMPOUND , _
KASAI GALLL BELGAUM -» 590' 05-1..

 '  EESFONDENT

mzs APPEAL is F'1LEi') _U/S '£(}{Tr«..(}E? j'V{3§'_i(', AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT ANL>.j"::_EcRI':'1:"'§A*1*1«::>._ :9..1_2;'«20o7 PASSED m
R.A.No.249[20£} 6 :1f:tis'}V'}'E+IE€F'IL'S'.(}F""TH»E In ADDL. «i:;E:.,_(,;§2..';:)r~:.) AND JMFC, BELGAUM.

mis APPEAL ',so~Mi£ai} ON FOR ADMiSSION, THIS DAY,

 *'mE,,c:;:¢<:)'uR'r BELESKEREIJ THE FOLLOWENG:

JUDGMENT

The ggefieflant herein is in this agapeai filed under Sactiom

:i{:a§.’ EQG 6? CFC against the concurrent jufigment and deems

‘p;_.-{$3351 by the trial Court as Well as the Lower Appellate {‘Eo11:rt.

-Ea appcfiant herein is tha §)la3’ntiff in O,8.P~5o.4{i3/2035. Tha

V suit in question was filed for permanent and ma£1dator’32

injunézfign. It is the case Gf 1:113 plaintiff that he is the owner of

L

-I

3
the property beazing CTS No.276?'[8. The defendant to

have puxchasad the aaighbouzning pmpcrty

No.”2′?6′?/7.

2. The case of the appellant “fhat. df:{é:ld_ai§t—-‘£h§is l

putting up construction in his SitCl.:”l}E?li;§lfG!}f1§l3?,illli1_V

touching ihfi northexn Wall and”?

therefore, the gxievance i$jr}1at 131$ Of ditch putting

up the pillars is likcly belonging to the

— flxat being put up by the
defendazfi. set back and has violated the

Regulationslcf by illegally laying the foundation

– ,9; e: the urlicr-*:}1.cn1 wall of the plainfifis.

nregaxvzi, thf: ma’ 1 Couri has amticéd the

V _ evidéflcc téiztléted by the parfics mainly the evidencfi Q11 behalf

;lxa%”.Vaftér’

appreciating the saici eviéence has’—_ come to’».t}:tet “Coi1{f6;.ri’a:+V;1t

finding of fact that the said c0fis’L”_§.1cfi1I>€8{L._

‘V another asyect of the matter which requireg to

I36 .1§.§ficefl .<;i§at: the grievarms: of fhfl plaintiffs is not of

vio1atEio:1t£::f fizascmentzry' rights by the defendant, The 0111}:

V' ".. g£jié*e7a.QCé" ¢'Et}_3p€1£3}'S to be the viaiation 0f the Municipa}.

' §{;gfi§étion.s and thii cozzstmzctimn being put up cantxasy 1:0 the

" hifirawiaws. Tha law is Wei} settled that in such a matter, it is far

the piaimtifig to ccmglam tax the Municipai authozities with

J

"9

Ifigard tax the vieiatisn fer taking actimz in that

such suit fer izigunction in such a situation is _I.}r;:1er:€g$f2s.r3f :"-2';n'd_¢

the said course is stiii open for the: é3p§¢_11Ea:;{t,"__if

is there.


That being $0,  jfifizyoid Mnjésrit stands
disposed of with 31:; order §fj_§    n