.. 1 .. . IK THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED 'I'_Hi8 THE 2151' DAY or JULY ~ V. BEFORE THE Horrnw MR. JUSTICE Ragga: Second Anneai Nos,333412e9 6 c)w%%%3434i20Q6k BETWEEN: : SR1 AMARo..;APPA,.--. sxo LATE <:H;Ki<A._MAR1YAP1?A" ~ AGED ABOUT SQYEARS ' _ i R/AT MYLASANDRA w:.,_LAG'E,f BE«c:URjj_~H_v.V_FQR, SR} H M sQ1~;IAsHEKAx:%A1AH;V) 1 4;: SR1 MUN} REDDY Ts/0 MUNESHAMAIAH " A_GED__ ABOU'Fv--4-9 YEARS . V R';'AT MYLASAN£)Rfis VILLAGE BEGUR HQBLI ';3.RE-6s RESPONDENT
. . L’ ‘ {IN RSA N0.33s4/20063
1 ~s;R::. RAMA REDDY
.. 3’30 LATE NARAYMA FEEDDY
” AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MYLASANQRA VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLL BANGALORE SOUTH TQ.
BANGALORE~–568 O68 RESPONDENT
{IN RSA -NQ3484/2006)
(BY SR! V V1SHWANAT°I~i,ADV.}
(‘v
-2-
RSA NOJ3384/2006 FELED U,/S. 100 OF’ CFC AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT 85 DEGREE DATED: 9.10.2006 PASEBED IN
R.A.N<:).206/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING *OFF'i"$EvR,
FAST TRACK COURT-II, BANGALORE RURAL DIST,
DJSMISSING THE APPEAL. AND CONFIRMING THE"JUI)AGELMEN'?'
AND DEGREE II)A'I'ED:29.9.2OOI PASSED IN OS..VvN0,'?6/ i'998
ON THE FILE 01:' THE AEJDL.II_HC£V£L '.JU':[email protected]§7. (;5R;DN..},
BANGALORE RURAL 919:1', BANGALORE. é
RSA 1v0.34s4/2005 FILED Ujs. o§*'N.}, BANGALORE RURAL 913;’, :§3A_NGA_LO’R_E.
THESE AEPEALs;”Ct3mfi;.Ncg’ r?<H:;.""ADM1ssIoN, THIS
my, THE COL_? i?1' "§},¥3LIVERE13'T¥§E Ayemowzna;
Aé t_h€:se ' arise out of the common
judgfigiielst 9A.:1().2O06 passed by 131$ Lower
in R.A.Nos.2()6 & 207/2001, these
togather and are being disposed at'
by £i'1.i.S}"'V(:€}.If{kIi(}I'i judgment.
V. igfie common appellant; in both these appeals was
Hfiefendaxit and the respandents in these appeals
Vwfislem the plainfiffa befere the trig} ceurt. The
4
/
-3-
respondent in R.S.A.N0.3384/2006 namely
was the plaintm” in O.S.Ne.’76/1998 and the
in R.s.A.No.3484/2006 namely gthe ‘ ‘
plaintiff in O.S.Ne.22/1998. The 1e’$pende:jt:§j
filed the said suits before “of the (iiiVi;¥.VvJi1dge” V %’
(Jr.Dn.), Bangalore emu elfiaeilgalere: for the
relief of permanent the comxnon
defendant paaceful
p0ssessio13″ae;d proeerties described in
the plaint. In O.S.N’0.76/98,
the subjeffifi site bearing No.20 ibrmed in
su;:§eyee.Ne.1′;4 e%:§vh:je in 0.s.No.22/98, the subject
évasfeite No.19 formed in Survey No.1/41 both
Village, Begin” Hobli, Bangaiere
-V S-:>fit.1f’1 each meaeuring 30′ X 40′.
V’ * Tile undisputed facts are that Survey No.1/4 of
Bggiyiasandra Village measuring large extent was acquired
by the State Government for formation of siiies and
5?
– ,
..4..
distribution of the game to site iess and ;i1oé_1oeL’
people and after *;he acquisition, the wage.
handed over to the Begur
purpose of forming sites 3211:: aliotnientg
the Begur Group Pa11ehaye:t:i’1.V”V i”he sites
allotted some sites nrefe allotted
in the year 1983. to t}}e– ”
4. It Wzie in both these suits that by the Begur Group
Fanennyetn {hem by the panehayath in
the and f;%1ei’eafter, the sale eertifimtes were
V’ , iesiziediéo them payment of the allotment price and
tihef’ jplaeefl in possession of the respective sites. It
Wee ease that subsequently by obtaining
necee.s::~2o5’y licence and plan from the panenayath, they
A’ –..;;$’:;:t.i1p constructions thereon and ever since the date of
V% ….ai1oBnent, they have been in iawful possession one
enjoyment of the properties. They flied the suits
-5-
5, The trial court, on assessment of oreiyaxafid
documentary evidence, decreed both
independent judgtnents holding that have .,
proved that they are in lawful
of the properties by virtue’ the e.
favour by the Begur ‘:3V;:21d ;i:hat the
defendant has no er heeeeeet in the
suit schedule plaintiifs are
entitled injunction.
Aggieeredv and decrees, the
eommefi appeals beibxe the Lower
Apgraliate The Lower Appeliate Court, on
of the era} and documentary evidence,
the judgaents of the tma’ 1 court and
cozeieeq-eeniiy dismissed the appeais. It is against these
V’ V’ , eengguzffent judwxents ef the courts beiew, the commen
‘e,e»i’e:j1daI:t has flied these we appeals.
Re
-3-
no manner of right, title or interest over the…__ suit
schedule properties, he has no right to ir1terfere”#J§7if;3*;-jtiile
possession of the plaintiffs. These suits
only for the relief of permanent’ ‘fi1j’uncifion,i xc0.i.:rtx’sVé
below have rightly not gone of
Only for the purpose of es. to, the’
plaintiffs were in the snitsehedule
properties as on the date: courts below
have incidenfialljf of title of the
respeetive courts below have held
that sites’ have been granted to the
resgeetive the Begur Group Panchayafll
the piamtifis have put up
eonsii1″tie”r:io1}iV.i’Vfiiereon after obta izrjaing necessary licence
and— plL’itI1..> the light of the Concurrent findings of fact
meordecl by the courts below, i do not see any gonna to
these appeals. This Court sitting in second
i “appeal under Section 190 of the CPC emmot reconsider
the concurrent findings of fiact recorded by the courts
,9-
below can proper wpreciation cf the
documentaxy evidence In this viaw of th¢?: ma;t§§i%:::*,4_ti”3T§é” »
appeals iack merit. Hmce, the ‘V T