1 RS}: 115052007
12¢ "ma area A'rE:9 THIS 'THE 13""! DAY-{'1'3?'APRE i : 2_(§§s?}
BEFORE l' m I 1 I L
THE} HONBLE M;mz,IsT:/'2;(3e?.i£::;3
BETWEEN:-- V
1 SE1 8 S S}:{vA;3.A §iSH:AR§, A ._
S/0 LATE '--sars;fNz3 RAME§}o:_m:§,a, ,
AGEQ AB()§¥T4S--VYEA!f%;-S." '
2 sR;~B"sBA:3Avfi;,:;eAJi;,"-
8/ C) LATE s:a.N.NARAMmawDA,
AGED A8033' £1}. YE',駧45S4,
BQTH ARE REsIDE::s;T3_oF
Bfi;LAVAP3_§:RALU__ V{.LI;AGE,
§~§¢.:;m§AvAL1.ff' HOBLI,
fmé*:€L_I:;: TALLIK_,'... _____
- é ':*::M~x:.¥R DISTRECT --~ 5272 2201.
.. ._ APPELLANTS
(5é'~--sA7';«:1%'B'":\4' i5.m%§?ALINGAIAH, Amt;
H " B S S-HEVARAMEGQWDA,
-- _ r Sfifi LEXTE SAENE REXMEGGWEA,
i§.{}ED ABQUT '?3 YEARS,
R] O BALAVANERALU VILLAGE},
" BONNAVALLY HOBLE, TIPTUR TALUK3
'i"'U;¥sr'¥K{}R DiS'}'R.¥C'§' ---- £372 291'
\'\vK
RESPQNDENT
2 RSA 125012007
(BY SR1 M RAVINSRANATH, A{)V.,)
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.10{) OF' CP§I"AGAiN$j""', *
"£'HE JUDGMENT Arm DEGREE DATED 14.02..2o_(3-7 FASSE2i'.')"' ._
IN R.A.N0.1'20/2006 ON THE FILE __O§'..THEI cIV1~L;;;..4:Un_GE'F-,_
(SR.DN.) ar, JMFCL, 'I'¥F-TUR, ALLOWVIM;'I=;{E«_APPEA;{.g3Ng)_ ;
SE'I"I'IN(} ASIDE THE JUDGMENT 'ANL3*::>ECREE DA.'rEJ:}-1.
04.09.2006
PASSED IN O.S.NO.236]20.{)4».ON T;»I.;’:”:F:;;,E’=–.o1:*
THE ADDLCEVXL JUDGE (JR.DI’I._) 3:…JMFE,V’I”EI?I”i}fvR.x _..
This Aypeai comm’g~.,_o11 fr)? flay, the
Court delivered the fo11oWi1′;g:7~ _ *
‘i’13js;v”‘3§<:r.);id' "dir5cted against the judgment
dated :4.,02.26o'zf' h.'-R.}&..Pé5.120/2066 passed by the Civil
3 Jzidgg-':,.(§§r.:g3;11,;} n at fipfurévmvemmg the judgment of the trial
izfgugrigf_dat¢:1;"§4'.¢9;.2o05 in o,s.No.236/2094 and decneeing
the .é.11;i.'f<«3f for permanem: injuinctierz.
.. '*;§ppc}§aJ:;ts am the defenciants and rcspomient is
before the mm mm. ;n this judgment, for
VT j'cc.n'2é:z1ience, tins: parties are mferreé to their status befere the:
VA Court.
on»
3 RSA 3160 2007
3. Plaintifl’ contends that he is the absolute owner in
possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheciule
having acquired the same unéez” the registered: ~
dated 11.11.1983. All the revenue regards “‘
MR’ extracts, mutatiaa extracts, ;V’2a.tta”‘et::oéksV,I’. jtaxt
receipts, etc., are in the 3:1ante«.._’of Jétheé
defendants tried to interfere ‘this ltpoesession
and enjoyment of “, he filed
G.S.No.2£§5/ fi{‘_}A€)”«»’+’tf’._–‘t’«;);’ _pe:fie;1auent injunction. The
defenéanteentered a§§eaténee«5efore the trial Court and filed
written _ –Statefiiéflf contending that plainfiff and
‘V they am in 3’oint possession and
% égzheduie property, out of the joint family
‘ V’ mcomettfhe property was acquired in the name of the
plaimm” ma; plaintiff alone is not the owner of the pm:
property. 013. these grenade, the defeneiants
.___’éifi3pesed the claim 0f piainfifti 011 the basis «of pleadings, the
tététrial Court framed the fofiowimg four issues for its
eo3::sid,era’::i01:z: –~
{74v\,Ae
4 RSA 1160,f2007
1′.) Whether the plainfijff proves that he h§a’s–
possession and enjoyment of suit” 1 V’
property as on date of suit?
ii) Whether the plaintiff” t31:§.at;_.:
interference by the deferxci;-a11t[s_”?A~’d
iii) Whether the p1aiI1i{jT<–..;s efietiede, ix fiéflnafien:
injunction?
iv) What order or*d.ecree?”” * V
4. Before the lejkamined tlimse
witnesses.ovas;’e§?3.?:§f€.}.’to::£”sV–3– got”mérked Exs.P1 to P9. The
defendanfs as DW~–1 to DEV»? and got
marked Exs.uD«.1l’io trial Court on appreciation of
4_..Vp1eadings oral and ‘doe_:_1;1;enta1y evidence dismissed the suit
‘Aggfieved by this judgment of the trial Court, the
in RA. 910.120] 2006 and the same
V came be . afiowed and the suit of plaintiff’ came to be
,”7dee1eer1a, Hence this second appeal by the defendants.
5. Heard arguments on both the side and perused
Wihe entire appeal papers.
<72.'/z\./'\,
5 RSA 11601200?
concluded that plaintifi” is in possessioa and e:1joyme11tVt§fr¥};’e
schedule: property”.
7, The ma Court dismissew 231;: ‘V
mainly on the ground that PW–2
admitted the plaintiff and dcfenii$:i1;s fivmg asfiper * L’
his deposition Ex.D12. The 10wer__ é{f)’;§¢iLa§e held
that the: admission of a 13,91; on the party to
the proceeciings. Ti16refex*§%.;–£?i¢:’17eVasQ.1;fiéi.§gv_ trial Court is
8._ Ah}? c}§3sVervzAei’Ej»c)V:xmaée by the lowfzr appellate
” quest;i5avv–af earlier partiticm dated 02.09.1977′ is
.013’tsif1tV {if the §}I’€SBIit $1111. and therefere the same is
;1ot’bifid«i1:zg«c;uiif’ parties. The defendants are at iiberty to
’emrk Gut remedy in accurdancre with law, if they are so
= . A c,:f1tiflé€:._
9. With the abovt: ahsezvatiexi, I find I10 jufiifiabie
ground to iI}t€I’fC21’€ Wiih the findings {if the }(}W8I’ appeiiate
{lourt I see no saubstaxztial question cf law that arise for my
7 RSA 116052007
corzsideration in this second appeal. Acccrdixlgly,
is hereby éismissed.
dh*