High Court Karnataka High Court

Sonali Bai vs Ali Bai on 25 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sonali Bai vs Ali Bai on 25 June, 2008
Author: A.S.Bopanna
In THE HIGH couwr OF KARNATAKA AT aAn§£.Ar;n DEST. 

P RU_D}§*A'SWA?.§'f = _  .. ' -

S/O LATE PEEKANA NAIKA 

AGED ABOUT 40 YE!'-aRS'= 

R/O n0D:31c;ANA.L MEDEKEREPURA

C-3HiTR.ADUR{_'1r_1fl'l TALUK AND D18'?  APPELLANTS

 '(B:,essi~i: E Ivrs:1;~3)APPA;"A't5v.}

.. 1

KL: am We LATE SAMYA NAIKA
AGED' wow 57 yams
R/O=.¥)O[)DIGAN.&L MEDIKEREPURA

" 'C;HITRADURGA TALUK
= .._A_2sZD Dififi'

 RAMASWAMY S/O LATE SAMYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

R/O DODDIGANAL MEfiIKE.REPURA
CHITRAUURGA TALUK
AND DIST

,3?

 



 9:" «. éa.«i":;5s5:fi§.HARA NAIKA

  AND DEGREE DTED 30.5.2002 PASSED {N

V'  "€SR,'i.;3N.), CHITRADURGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING

_' AS¥DE THE JUDGMENT AN}? DEGREE DATED 22.3.91 PASSED

  O.S.NO.2}2/85 ON THE FILE OF' THE PRL. MUNSIFF,
  «GHITRABURGA.

3 ONKARA NAIKA S/0 LATE SAMYA:i'€AIK2=.. A 
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS  7 A .1
F:'/() DQDDIGANAL MEEDIKEREPURA. 
CHETRADURGA TALUK V 
AND DIST

4 vzsmw s/0 LATE smm NAI_{~_:_A=,_ 
AGED mom 3': YEAz2sV_  'A  
R/O DODDIGANAL MED;:4Ea:EP:--.;gA~--.._'ȴV%  _
CHITRADURGATALUK   
AND ms'? V   v

5 KUMAR S/-:2-' 1¢':TE'SA3_dYA i'€'A§KAA '  'V 
AGED A3013'? 3?¥,.Y'_EARB_  .   .
R/0 ii)OI;3DI{_3ANAL"MEDifr':ER!§EfEIR.A 
<:H1TRADug(3.r:'.{;fALLI;(-  ~- 
aNLs'D'is':1j:,  

6 KAMALA NAIKJA .$'/'O {.A?E SAMYA NAIKA
AGEDAB€)U'{' 28"'.{EAFf'$_  
R10 D1D'£::f§ANAL 'MEDKKIEEEEPLIRA
CHI_'}."RADURGA TALUK 
AND 1313;' "

'  $,!O"!,ATE«.8AMYA NAJKA
.;A.<3E.I;"z2..13oLm:_.23 YEARS
--A we nazmsmuan ME{)IKEREPURA
-(;'.HITF3ADURGA TALUK
A'ND"--§}ISE'  RESPONDENTS

TTHISNAPPEAL IS FILED U/S109 CFC AGAINST THE

:2.A_n'<:».22/91 an THE FILE OF' THE 1 mm… CIVIL JUDGE

J:

This Appeal on-mizig on f0rI1r,ari1_1g,.t,_}_1is .( ‘£”m I”!:

dcliveted the fuilowing :

This appeal is filed by the Lt§;.:~.éV§1§§.-2’iJA2/35.
The tria} Court by its jud5g¥:{{:*.1t’ s.«~;1:1d;;_ 1.991
deemed the suit in »favour .n.-f V defendants
Claiming to bc the First
Appellate Appcllat-1*, {‘§4:n.n”t
by its the appeai and
set aside 1V!x;”{;.:¢:j,-V’ damd 22.3.1993. The

plaintiff V fl_f3I’.’.’!’€’:i”{’51″1′,V.vC1aE?!j.’.lll”iL’!Aig be aggrieved by the SHIBC is

bcfoIE’-‘:f}’iis:_€:o1z.1jt in {}.ii§”af:pe,£%}.

2 are referred to in the: same rank as

V zassigiéd befbm the trial Court: far the putrpose of

‘and clarity.

T ” The brief facts irading to the case are that the

was hcfom the trial Court setéking for a judgment

15

the: proptrriy bckmging tn the piaintifil The: ca.3gé””§f A’

defendants is that they have pInt*:hasar} the .Iv)(-;$é::::t’i1}g 3

Sy.N<1-.22/3 nmasuring 4 891133 tmde1fis=: It;gi'fi~€£3i'tEt'}' SL63}1€§"§i'3;€:iV1' V'

dated 8.3.1965 from mac Sri RTu_d_mp}pa."'–..The _;i'a:f§§uaan'ts§"'- 1'

fl)C"l'Cfi')I'€: Cfllltfllld that they are in 'vfmfimmqhii. .ai.1'ir! .£tnjdy:nc11t

of the land, which has them and
flZl6I"Ef0'I'B the pIaif:1.fi'-'r3;.' fdrfgfzy against the
deftmdants. Tfic '§30fight for dismissal of

the suit.

4. ‘t:riavl v flflft rival eontgantions gmt

forth before ithzaa fi:s22I1i1»:%xi.= many as mven iSSl.I£’:S§ for its

_ VCOIlS’I1’E_’§¥:.”afi(i13, wh’iar:hV read as izcztztinder:

= & V the pmve thai he is the
‘ V « and 20 guntas of land beatmg
3 of Madakcrepuia?

Vtfilm plaintiff pmw that he’; was cultivating thr:

x ‘T efltizfi auit land o1}:he.*: date. 0f the suit?

:-

I’!

‘ ‘~ ‘ T,ing”ti’1e sI_:itV’iK?ifAhout oonsiciering the admisaion

d£:.fenda:nts being aggrieved by the same filed ;__ A4
appeal in R.A.N::s.22/91. The F’iT8t€;1fv::
rt:–app1*e(:iat:ing the evidence and i ‘.
submitted by the (.?»avn1misai9nc’r favas&V’o_%
ilamilar as 2314: Gaye put fart}; by’ sgach
reveraed the fillding of the: Jjjtfféai ‘g)Iaintfivf%t}i;:Iz2f0re

is hflfblfi this

6. This Cami”: flif: aplmal on 2 1 $3.200?

flamed thti ::fi.;g-}3i.Ib.’$éi,f:i’j?Vt”!’*.i’_ie’13′”‘i’1ijiEV5fifi133 of law, which
read as heir:-f:::;de;:_ VV % H
“L Wh;§i’h;érvvtt;é mart’ bfibw is juatified in reversing
judgrnrnit deéree passed by the trial court

‘ ‘1;2a;d3_i§§r defendant in his evidence as DW. 1?

‘ ‘ Whaffiéfiizhe lower appeilate cuurt is wrong in not

cénsidgriflg the evidence: of the court commissioner
AA and i316 report givfir: by the court commissioner and

, pfiigitting to consider ihe same aiong with other

i

etfidenca on record?”

the mattsr is mu al-(mg with the document at ‘ *

extant mentioned in the body wnuld »t!1e_

cf 7 acre-.. 3 27 guntzas of the Vfifldffi’ of tie: ag§p’.ii’~afit, :ia;.n 1j_’

area of 1 acre 5 gunfas of land” is mtiie

said smvey number, the elfifiiyfiicilt of
the actual cxtent af the ownVgf:;’V extent of
3 aczims 32 guntays said basis, the
boundaries whereby rim
€’.I}tiI’c cxt¢iif.”i3 This aspect
of the naaiiimrl _w#u.1dcrstx)od also by noticing

the onnizentiofiflf film d__efé,~nsti:aii.ts.
” Even a”a.3_1iii1ing for as mument that under the sale

t’x}j4e:.«_.’¢:3<'tt3I1t'" 'é:s:<3111(i'n1g kharab land, 7 acres 27

and $iIflC.13 hallnriaries iilclmirz icharab

' in defendants cannot lay claim to the mid

in the said stnvey number as admitftadly the _

V' under Ex.DI have purchased 4 aux':-,3 in

22/ 3 to which boundary is also indicated 3¢::cx)flii11g}y.

é.

Sy’.N{>.22f3 Whirih belong to them, the cam put

plaintiff that he is culiivatittg the extent of 8 Vvgiiiftns

as indicated in the schedule to the ;;1aint..3n;as* 1′

fl1ct3’ialC’.ourt.

1 1. In additinn in the eVi(iPJ_]R(x”:V_iiVi}i(fi},_I”15i§”IVV

by the plaintiff bcfnrrc the; trial {:’~:)_3L1si(i.§°.i”i:1gA the

parties’ , had iiofation of the land,

mam ware oontgntiing that

‘the e.asmi5L:.« ‘bo11i1d:§zi*§ and flmwbm the said

‘Kaila’ amags. _1Vafi:3_»’ hémeen the p}ai:.1tifi’ and the

” ‘d;2’&Ilfi§;3lLS,L. the B1izii’£’431:rt had appointed Stxlveyor as the

-V Cuxgimiatsiézner. The Clmrrt. Colnmissioncr has

suhmittbd and the report as per Exilafi? and (T8.

By t11c ‘szaii§¢Vs.’l§étch, the Court Fazrmmissioner has indficatmi

‘ffgaf fl1§ défcndmats have enclnaczhcd 8 jpartion of the land

..}jj.e1’5¢;-‘§g’;:’1Ag tn the plainufr. It is afim’ mtacing this asgmet of

“-.:fiié”Tmattcr and ctwnsidering the report submittcd by the

Cfifllt Commissioncr along with other evifienae which was

J,

-‘3

1?

judgment dated 22.3.1991 in O.S.No.212/85 gmsfféfii ‘ ~

Prl. Munsiff, (‘.5hit;rau:i1.mga is fl’3Sf1′.7′:i”t’td»._ &T1’_§§ :31 ._i_.:;

acreuifitingly allowed. New 01:33:’ as ten T *