High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri H M Shivappa Devaru vs Sri. Shivarchaka Basavaraju on 30 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri H M Shivappa Devaru vs Sri. Shivarchaka Basavaraju on 30 August, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan


EN ‘T’H§§; HEGH CiC)UI{“T OF’ KARNATAKA AT BANGfi;LC)RE-‘”—

DafixkfififistheEKWIday0fAugusE2D13y

BE}F’GRE

THE HONBLE M’Ef.JUS’I’£i3.E1 V.J;{§§}ANI?€E§’§”1§§;§xI:\i””w:: 4- _ _: ”

R.S.A.No.e389/20$? J ‘A
BETWEEN: VT ‘ A

SR1 H M SHEVAPPA DEvgRU,
S/O C!~¥.IKK.AMALLISWAExefi’;A’ _ _ ..
AGE: :71, HULIMAWJ v::,:;;1.a:;:«:, ;
NANJANGEEB ‘mLLJ;<, – V '
MYSORE [}£STRICi'7:'–.

{By Sri v’:’L:Ha*éE”.:é§_i–A:iws;’i”<_A 3-.3§;§i'2as5§iR'i;_AB\2'.;
AM):

i. SKI SHiif£&R’C§~5IAKA–._BE&&§AVARAJU,

SR1 S§~i’IX.{_.f\.R’CHAKA PEETTKASWAMY,
1~’.._B{}U’f’ 3*–3′—‘5i3£§RE3.

V’ “:§;Nj§*;”‘v..;;”;;;3,.ft’;x;}i*i=i RI,

. =I?;*jC»~i$$E.}f$IIL’E:.55;’Eiz’£’l\£3\.i’~¥I’aEI,
1 AGED A.§~:%_0i;-“§’- 3? YEARSS.

‘ 13, $’12:5’Raif:”,

n [D] C}v.F’ifiNGAMM.ANN1,
’23,.{}E§ ABC}1_3’f’ 35 YEARS.

QALL ARE RIA HULIMAVU VELLAQE-E3,
NANJANGUEE TALUK, MYSQRE szsrazm.

~ fist. V¥LLisGE PANCHAYAT,

Hi} LIMAV{} VILLAGE,
CHATRA E~IC}i3Li,

bx)

NANJRNGLHBTALUK,
MYSORE£MSTRHfifl
BYFK§SECRETARY.

n.RESPfiNDENTS,

‘PI-{ES RS3 HLED ms. 130 up €f.i3’C: ;%GAINS’Tj_’35§’L§ -.’ 2
JUQC’:EiIviE3N’i” 35 DEGREE BATEB; 18.2.2089 PAs;5;.E:}-:’T”:’:~’1 j”’ ” ‘

R,A.N(I),?’3,!2G04 ma FILE 0;? ‘THE CiV–I~i.w–

{$2.035} 35 .J:vn7~«:., NANJANGUDQ D’:;$:xtIé;fsEr>
APPEAL CONFIRMENG THE .JU£)<};::r~}:"E;N:<T*2s;ND"–r)';;:–::;1¢;::t:f.

DATED: :2,7.2004 PASSED mi cz;'s;1.._N0.;:u~4i EV99é5 €3§"ji<'1?'_I£~IVVVE;..3
FILE 01? THE ADDL. <:ri?1L_"" g,:UD&3~rE:""T–{.J'RL'pN,1
NANJANGUD. '

T'Hv';S"APPi%:AL ' oz$i_"'m:} R A9MIsS1<::»N THIS
am', THE; ce)'z§m' :j:j';"31,i*.iE'£":}é:'Lw THEE: FOLLOWWG:

. fin" ..£:1LMENT

…»,…_…_..,

ieéfneg ____ _'<:%om'1se1 far the appeiiant in

s)f”€13:: “ag3§peai praferred by the plaintiff being
aggrifflfid j_ trial Court dismissiflg ths suit fer

‘.per111$13,ei11; iiijuxlcticn agajfist tha <:iefené.a;1'ts and the

'V~E%:;'1{?:.é:*' «appeiiate court refused to ir1te1'fere with the

A' ii1'1di11gs by diSII1iSSiI"1g the piair1tifTE's appeal

,._,/

3

2. Leamc:-d. ctounsei for the appeliant

sui1}:11.it.I:ed that both the courts hsid that the p1ai11t;ifi”»T.

has pmved his title and possession aver tI§.e”– _.__ é

scheduie property, bin; stili d£:<::3i11ed .. 3

i1"1j1iI1C'fiOf1 as sought for by tiifi f

<::0m1e<:tio3:1 my atteI1ti011sa:%as <i_1:"aw11;"tQ __th€j:'§

observations made in tria} cou1;t=j;t1d..;$I16'Ii'i 1:9} the
adn1issio1'1 made by E116:–cI%:fe11%:iaJ;:zt.zI"3é.n1,s§é3lf 311:1 1*r:.lying
can this. it is argued 1:1AL:s:1:,'_1'::§.1<:.~' .1:1:iai '<::ci:i;f,I;* 'Couid not
have re:fust:c1g1§2;1?:_t. f2;.<)"'t}ié:~:"'p£ai:1i3.ff as an
at1:e111pt. ':i.s 'neiifig iiiié: defendant to em:1'0a.c:h

inte the: gaiii, :S;i{T11€:'tI'1f§t(i'.{}:I}« ftxrsz eamern gide of the suit

– . sci:zf:_{EiiiQ __:3r.n2v9;i’éi-zéidd after going through the judgmcmts of

;r;:_ou1*€;$. below, I19 deubt. appsefiantgs counsel is

submitting that both the courts have htzid

: _ “t-hat the pIaiI11;ifI”‘s titie and possession of suit

” property are 110$ in di$p11t’:{:. However, to seek an

};r

0:51:31′ Of injurictiofi. pIaj11flfi W13} have to establish

i.11terfere1″1c€ 0f tbs dfiffiflfialltfi and as I’E:g8I’CiS the

being in existerace to the easiem side of :_. ‘

schedule property. the very’ admissign 111£a.4:i”cé”}3–j;:}fj’_£4?W: 1* _

that there is no gajii in the €iEiSt£:’3§’I1 5353?: ‘ci2f’t1r 2é’ ‘A

sch:::d1.11€: property is S1’1ffici€Iii;,««..§:I:01jg.hx 121;) {.0}

accept the said stand taken by fizst: p1_a_infi1″£.. _E”ve1i% {I15
(3ommissi01:1er’s report, “~:a.%E1i::I1 H533 to by the
triai Court, rt::VeaI.s that-:1§1 ié; féiiigid on tha
eastern sside :4::.:i§*..,,t&1″1e{is._*._,1it ‘pr<1;.§€r*i;§:.j- 1:1 fiié face of 3.11611
e:Vi<:1eI1c€:_ on 1"©(3:(i'au£'<§41;.._fi(}EL4'¥'i?ffifiS't{1I1(f1iI1g the possfission

and r::I;j0jm2:::*;_I:: ' tiff)' :§<:h€:d1:de pmperty by the

in {:15 'ahscnca of evtidellce i3<::::i:1g piaceci to

'V_p:<'(§v:=:_V tI*j1f3'«.H3§,é§ft:rence by the defenda11ts_., the trial

c01–1Ai'"t–..wa$ 'j-:1S3:ifi¢c1 in dismissing the suit of the

p£aiI1'f:iff ;i¥;1(};'I';0}:' the very' same rt-zastan, no errer can be

.f01iI";;d..u ixfthe judg;111c=.1:1§; cf the appeiiate couriz. Ne

.,.\{,§L3V}i§S?LE}Ilti8.1 quastionfiafv arises for consideration.

\|

'J:

Appfiai 1T.hti’.I’€fO1″€ stands disIn;1ss@(i. if the

defarzdants iflterfere xvith the p1a;’1:”1tjfi”s suit p:’op6rt§5,’

it is open 1:0 the: appc:fia:1t.-p}ai;1ti:f¥ 1:0 ta’i,@~:1¢ces$éiiS:’ -1 ”

action as is sjpen :0 him in Law.

Dvr: