Sri Erappa vs Sri Ningappa on 31 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court

Author: V.Jagannathan

an 1 ..

IN mg EQGH ccxxm or KARRATAKA xrBAHGAI,¢;=m«:j%V%%%% % R
Dated the: 31»: day cf?-'-13'Qs£2(}10 7

:BEFORE:

aaxmm 2m..ms*n<:E : _j% % '

E E3:

am ERAPPA,
am FEDZLEAPPA,
AGEDABGUT48Y3'£AR$,
Aamcvzmnm, ' 1 " %
R;c:*r:ixJ1=pA.r:AKALL1'¢§;='zLALc;e«E,% * _
JA&&LUR'I'ALUK,_. " " A
mvmcmm n1s*:a1c;-at-5 '7' c:c2..f;- '

.... "

[By arm " 7

£2

' A ..... .. «
8-/0.,L&TEBII¥&APPA,
MESULWWW»
R] :2: pﬂwyymmuu vmmm,
Rf "1'ﬁ'.I.3{3'K,

. 3 DAVAN{'.-3-ERE 33mTRIGT~5'f'? 992,.

131$; VALYAPPA,

_ T._$}.C}'I.{£TE NB*I%.PPA,
' .__ "'AG;ED ABQUT 52 WE;
, " .4;GRICUL'i'URETS,
" ' x R,' C} THUPPA§AKLLI VHJAGE.

VA Jaaaaxxxmraxgrx,

EAVAKGEE E1BTRI{§'1'-5?'? 602..

3. am VAEAPPA,
3; as mm Hmcuappa,
saw A3013? 47 mm,
AGRIGULTURETE,

R! O THUPPADAHLLI VTLIAGE,
JA@;LU R TIFLLUK,
EAVAHQERE D1BT1?IC'I'-5'3"? 092.

4- 9:3'? E ,

mo mm mmmmm,

man man': 2:4 mm,

.ame1cuL*:*umm~s, %

R} 0 'nmPmnAm.L: VK.LAGE,~ '

.:A<m.UR mwlc, & ¢

EAVANGERE ms'm1c1'~,577 oaks. _
* 3§::swmENTs

(By Sri N s YAm

mrs 1?*i:.Eéf ::;sg; _ 1a9 cyé; AGAHQWT ma:
JUBGMENT & 1 --Z£)Ii§!If.3;§EE fa'4.o'3::Im m PASSEIJ IN
12.A.r:c:.1m.. smmx cm},
JUDGE, DAV§&;BEA;_GEﬂ:;i€;x§LQ '}:'!l{i€3f_'THE APPEALARD sswrma
ASEE mm 'Mensa DATE!):23.I0.£0O8
mass}: m o,s.N<5.53i 2c:os%m£r THE FILE 012* 'ms: covm cm
QWB'

'I'

..... 3 ..

allowed tlrm appwl ﬁiad by the plakrm. The V.

deczﬁ.

2. 2 have mm learned wtumﬁl, g:g:m'nm E

tha only g'aw:1d put forward

Shri A.H.an.1.:3ztanthappa is «¢-mt had
clisﬂﬁmﬁed the suit an barrad
by rw-iuﬁiwta: the the said
mm and as::eq:ﬁi:_;I__, aﬁowad than
LA. magi 11:1 fZ*}"; a§':§CPC by the second
plaixlw' produced Wﬂﬁ taken
mm of 313;}. juam: of tm trial court
that the lmvar appellate
($53 gag pzuvisians of Iaw mmasma in order

the ahaeawe of any am of the

the Lowm: appellate ccurt could not have at the
% aima the LA. am by the mponam-m-

As such, thn maﬁa' requm-w' remand to the

S appellate mutt. It was f1.11"th3E:I' cazrbezﬁed that the

appellant is Gm owner of the suit property and ﬂzwefam,
531' this rm.mz1ako,%n.d becomm mammary. The above

/ 9"/,

".4...

aubﬁion is supperwd by the Apex Court ruﬁng reported

inﬁm 2% SC 579. wm made

M315 and 16 and aim para 17 of the ma

'I'@'efore, suhmissitm. made is '4 'A

Ciumﬁon cf kw rafmed in the appml 4'

3.. 0n the other hand,

Sh:-i N.sh..,.,mm,..m
plaiznﬁ arguad that the

3. datazh :1 order on I.A.Ho.J: mama' of

additional avidmme and truly
after haanng'_ sixiﬁ, IJL1 wag allowad by the
'~'--}--¢£s§re am, no cabjwtions wm filed.

_ appellant. Fzartltum subzrmksinn

'xmade the writtm statemztt, the appellant

up any mud 'ha the gases: am he is the

suit pmperty, but a plain leak at the

in the writtxaz smmmsmt gun in show that

dengfmg the plaint avssrmm, netﬁm mom is

"Stated by the appeknnt. Undm theae cirmumstanam, tin

lowezr appellaw mart was justiﬁw Em allawing I.A.N¢.1 anﬁ
akoi11re&iI:gﬂ:nej11d@r:taft1'1en~iaicaurt. As Earns

9:/,

.. 5 ..

thn recs-judimta mum putufarwawd *3 concerned, learmd
cuurmei argued that suit *5 for heat injunction'

thpemfom, cause sf' action ﬁor the present aagiiaf"

scemewhem in the month (if May 2908 wgm' '

suit was mm in impact 62' a diﬁwetig 5f', E

the mum af acéan for the mgit .

put as in the year 2090-01. 'I'h.eret_" appellagvj te
muff cxrtmﬁttaeé m 12'iaI cnurﬁa
E E. 3% an the q11¢l!; ',--2i¢I1 91' iﬂzr all time

1-mm, the aygail if; . '

4. aidm, in as far as am facts
are the. took up the atand that they are

ﬁazfseassinn of suit aclﬁule property

in survey N920/6 ef Tuppadahani
Ta!-uk am: it is. the anmm-ax

plainﬁ aha reliad on the erdcew passed by

% +.iz§=. _D;e§puty Tahamld' at in ER'? cg m:.11,:2nw»2m7 to

in thak plaint that they are the ownm at' the wit
Jaciwdule pcro@'ty. Fszllowirzg the e by 'km

defsndant in the Last week at' May 2%, suit far t
irgjrgxzztcrﬁsrm t®%m bmam nﬁeary. The stand of the

.. 5 ..

prrwmt appellant in the writtm statmnt was on: of
denying the plakzt wammerrm and suit was also

be dhmimd an the grouzmd at' that: piaintﬁa' ''

C3.S.§o.8BI20ﬁ31 @113' t the pwenmxt V'

amassed and see: also: the LA.

R.A.19'?I2002. Taldq the V.

pm 91' suit being mm by 1:21; ciid not
set up any title in the suit tn any
fact umeh waulé g:.~t% to is ma
awxm of suit

cf the "dismissed thc suit at' the
gr am j mgaz-ma the

as far as pesmsaim af the suit

is comm-md. and defendanfs

man "Suit was nat mm' mm' me ﬁx v:ew' of the

V' " ﬁeeme in C1.S.Ne.88/2063. was aha accepted.

the suit t.hm'e£ore- 3%. the p1am1ﬁ'a' ' 13) move the

% A '-'étppellata csnsurt in R.A.Nc:.103[2008.

5,'Ihe1wrxwdJudgeafthe!awm-apmllamcmxrt
faurxdﬂmtﬂzeuisalaaurtwaaﬁnerrorizzrmrdingaﬁndirg
in&v::uroft11eappe!1antir1s ofar&ast1aaep}m::{zm~

'/,

.. '3 ..

juéimta is mmemed and taking mate of the diﬁbrcnt cause
c:facImx1' Ear the in suit arﬁ the aarlim suit,

the ﬁnditw in 1:13: mrlisr awlt did mt "

comma, the krwar appellate court

axic3.33.1o' ' nal evidaxme placezi, k%

about the actual arm the
«mum and the gamma
s.uthori.tim mm: that an p;aa--r¢ﬁ"§k of the
suit property, 219.2015 and

tin mntaratium gut ﬁrward by the

menial): that tm Iowa' appellam oeurt;

in the 1.5.80.1 for addithxml , it

'V tn talus non: of the provisima contammd'

% 4:. Rule 27 of cm and saﬁ order mam it clear

' - 'denim my; be wiued at tho:

kxzsmme of the parnes' $eekmg' m mam the adaimﬁ

evidmhwonﬂxcgtnuxﬁofﬁwmrtymtlméngabkem
pmﬁuce éocuﬂts dsupihe merwe {sf cine': diligence, but a

.. 8 ..

can-sful readizxg -anfclausee (b) fRuk= 27 of Qrdcr 41 will alas
go to irniicaba that apart ﬁnm the circumstances.

in the said ordar, if tha appellate court ﬁnds
ot11m* mxbstaxrtial cause, the additﬁnnal "
permitted, 'chm the mutt has get

a.dxi1t1o' ' nal evkiexme pIa:ced.an_.

7. In the light cf zm afgzmaiﬁ §$f'iaw; in the
imam man, the mm: allewing

I.A.I§o.1 has in the murse

cf am dergitea pmduetasun at' aciditienal
amumgm b,;w+;;.y evidaznca is xmmxy in
juatim and aha havkg regard tn

to the praducticn of docuwts by

. :f--v§3~.,af , the court was of the View that
dacuwba fxzrnmmd by time appellanm befcre it
V as 'u was not possible to pa-entrance the

an me;-ins witlmut am said aocumn. In the

light a: he afcrmaid mom gum by the lower appellate

aeurt W'hi}£. albwing I.A.Ker.1 and mmmd far tbs appeﬁant
aka beﬁig ﬁd in 1:% matter thaugh rm objacztjons have

. J

.. 13 ..

ﬁ1xdmftl'1sem1m:rurtcaffact'm therefore mt ﬁablato be
i1:1'hm*w& withinthe smut}. . 3

Fur the above reasons, rm substantial A' %

3.:-hm far aensidm-atalon and the apgzreal
mmmx cf the mom: mm
of defendant astablislaing has W

wt in the mm ufthe .§ppmmh% % 'the
warm to antabzish his made hereain

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel

Sri Erappa vs Sri Ningappa on 31 August, 2010

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel