Loading...

Sri Amarojappa vs Sri Muni Reddy S/O Munishamaiah on 21 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Amarojappa vs Sri Muni Reddy S/O Munishamaiah on 21 July, 2009
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
.. 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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information