R.S.A.N0.2311/2008 UV' 1 HUI IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAICA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1573 DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 BEFORE THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMEsH;'_'''''' « 7 H" Reclular Second Appeal No.231 I I BETWEEN : SMT. RITA RAYAL w/0 A.G.RAYAL ' _ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS " R/AT NEAR VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPE ._ KATAREPALYA, KOLAR cm? 101/" - ...'A:§>EI.LANT (BY SR1. RASHEED KHAN, ADV} AND: SMT. NARAYANAMMA H D/'O SONNAPPA' ' f ._ w/0 V.S.RAJENDARAP1~'§ASAB--~ " AGED ABOUT 2:0 YEARS ' - R/AT P.C.EX'I'ENS¥ON.. _ KOLAR 553' 1.01 .. ' ...RESPONDENT
‘.[BYSOI§*ifaSU’NDAR DIXIT. ADV. 1
U/S 100 OF’ cpc AGAINS” THE
JUDGMEN’I’ ‘ANDDECREE DATED 31.07.2008 PASSED EN
vRA.No..,:3<)7/;:D0'7, 'ON THE EILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL, JUDGE
(SR.DN.)'& c.jJ1vz." K01,-AR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SE'ITI1\EG
«. I.H'_f~,..AS'{DE WE ':.JUDGMEN'I' AND DEGREE DATED 06.11.2007
_ IN 'DS.No.138/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL
4_JU_DQE {;;R.DN.), KOLAR.
‘I’HES RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY. THE
M DELIVERED THE FOI.L()VVING:
R.S.A.No.2311/2008
JUDGQMENT
This second appeai by the defendant is directed
against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2008
by the Lower Appeliate Court — the Court. of _
Clvil Judge [Sr.Dri.]. Kolar, allowing; in
R.A.No.307/2007′ fiied by the respioéndentj/piaintiffr'”V:Ey”*::;_’«
the impugned judgment, the Lower Appe1iatei’dCourt:V ‘has d
decreed the suit of the by
restraining the appellant/’ddefendarit; Aiiiriterfering with
the piaintiffs posse_ssio11″ the:*.__suit{xseihedule site
measuring xfi 3
2. _I heard. tiielearned,.~eounse1 appearing for the
appeliarit ar1d°’~~pneruVs-ed’=_the impugned judgment. The
:.’j’Lo’.ver “Appe-1}a{;.e Court”,””ori reconsideration of the oral and
docu’f’nueVri.rtai3[d evidence on record. has held that the
Vresporident! p1;aintii’i” is the owner and is in possession of
suit It is relevant to refer to the foilowing
of the Lower Appellate Court:
“.25
– s o u . – . u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . « . . . . – . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – . . a . no
it 5y
if” X”
‘V;
X
R.S.A.No.231. I /2008
H3-
. . . – . . – . . . . . . . . . . – . – . . . . . . . . . . . . » – . . . . . . . . . . . . – . . . 4 . . . . . . . . – . ¢ . -.
……………………………….. .. In this case the ll
platntgf/’ has produced the Certtfted copy
the grant certjftctate and got it. marlcedll”-at’ l
Ex.P3. on seetng the EXP3, “‘is-.c:lea:r V
the suit schedule property bea’rtng;’_’st.te
has been granted by the___ BDO.v.”V’KOlCQ~”.v”‘if’;
favour of the plafnttff dtLrt}’tg:”ti1.e year
On the basis of Ex.f’3-g«raf’tt’lytpicerttftcate “the”v4
katha was ev[)”ect”ed'” -the _ ptaintijf
and Ex.P1 –a.ssessn1ent.’_ fregt.ste_r and
Ex.P2–de Vk loses that
the the suit’
scheclttleipropetjty. ‘-l.Ol>:’1_l’see’king§Ex.PI to 35 it
is clear property has
been’gr_ar1tred’wirt the plairtttff during
the _yeara”i -and: alleged agreement of
sotleidleevds at1″E2c;–DI and 3 were executed in
» jthe It is clear from the records
_ was put in possession of
Athe §sef’1edule property much earlier to
Ex.D_}”:.ar1d 3 sale agreements. Ex.D1 and 3
A i–“s.aI.e agreements are subsequertt to Ex.P3-
grant certtficate. Therefore. EXP} to 3 are
sufficient to hold that plaintiff was the owner
and in lawful possession of the suit schedule
1
R.S.A.No.23i1/2008
t4-
praoertu as on the date of the suit”, but the
trial court has [ai.led to consider this aspect
of the matter and took a wrong track which
landed in error and confusion. Therej’oréf§l;.ll”
jrom the available material on
clear that the platr1ttfl” was tltefloairter and’
lawful possession and eryoyrnl’ent’:”-of «.
schedule property as on’th’e._.date’volj:’ the
and the plaintfl)’ has thell
interference by the’: ‘::iejer;tdlarit:ll.o:.lerthe
schedule property. is
entitle to tl13s.l’;*€’l__iefC§iASl’ ….
3. I flncllnol thelaforesaid reasoning of
the Lower Appe2lateV._Co–lu’rtl_.”‘ opinion, no substantial
question. ‘oflawhl arises for determination in this second
tolmatimit the appeal. The appeal is
a(:cordri1_1g1y< . d.
A”p.peai’t1its’missed. a ~ /1
sa –
JUDGE