High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Huchappa S/O Sankappa vs Sri Parameshwarappa S/O … on 14 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Huchappa S/O Sankappa vs Sri Parameshwarappa S/O … on 14 March, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
'tr; '   CWVJVI
 ED Wis THE 14*' "" "f I';'JF iv!
BEFORE

THE HDITBLE MR. Jusnm;    "

 

uuuuuuuuuu -an

a;oaa.1mn1=P.-.W_"   
mm e5imans%  % 
:.:gc.2g1a1?Jc11Liru;11ar  X 
1=uoka1JL%.n:m1lAN.aHm.Livn.1AGE
 Hr;-m:%   
k  .?fi'fi'i'fiv?aT 5':°32¢1

:13; am a_  ADV.)

   _____ 

~ and-nu V

 _   am  HWMM'"'T9fi

 Q HIKLEGOWDA
---  AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
' :';;_;:'§'3lZ1(_3: AGRICULTURIBT
 RIO KENHEREHALLI VIIJAGE
E.'..!!'.'..'.£'-.P.": EQELI
ARAB-IKERE TALUK

  D':$'i""""a:u.uT

-xr.

 RESPONDENT

E F11-ED U! 3-. 10!.) OF CPO AGAINST THE

15 DEC’-REE DT.12. 13.9007 PASSED IN

-1: 1 urn n?’;u33_4′ #1:’! «run 1:;n1 ‘I? 01.? _ (“‘lU’I”I’..l’I’I’wg

la’ -Sal-J–In! Viaurtalru-Ir

Am? .-2.931.. mg, .#..'”F.3EERE, 1′.>m%m-:3 THE .->.1=9’=’;..u
AND ‘OOIIIFIRHBGG THE JUDGIIEHT AND DEQREE
m=.a1.5.irn::4 ‘misfit m G.’zi.iI”E’z.ii3f iaai an’?-.if’E
or Tm PRL. cwmmnem [JR.Dl|), % H % ”

THIS APPEAL comma on ma a.:Jma:3Ié1it

my, mum COURT DELIVERED mm mLmwmt3: V n

‘run is plnh1fifl’aV’V.§yi§::;9nx’iA’*I€a_ppea1w =4 i-.

the W-waif!’ has in he in tins owner
in poueaagonggr trgd and failed to
prom In in not entitlad to
oonnequenflal roller!’ of

izgjuzm-‘”u:_n; .

V1?-for a of cements’ name, the purine’ 3 are

‘ -;ariu’ir1……-!Il’ rm-1-,

3.1’haeuubjuctmathe1’oft11aauit”nlandbun1i:1g

8_I_r.Ho.30,!i mnanuflng 2 acres situated in Konlnarehnllt

village, Bannvnra Habli, Aruuiluacra Taluk, Human. _.

a tegisterad sale; deed dated 15.1.1937. His

oonflnuing in waeooinn J

1.’ an amass-Uni’ ‘

“13 I.”3″‘IJi.JI..u..I.I..u. 75″ :’€”” ‘V

lmmntrees and otlfiv anti

houae by P1’°Perty. All the

property

WW3’ fi’u.lar””‘ «if p1au*”i*u.ifi I:I.n1″”‘

in the name: of plum’ tifi’.
nn mumur of nght,’ tit]: or

” V. in trying to interfere with the

I1 I:-rut’ an-inu-n-aunt Hf $1111! a!”I._t1

.VEIlnIlV|l.’–“|-la. 11-5-I Luanda Ir nunauur Injun-

‘rim piaintifiwaa comm-aima in file a suit for

.. of title and pennuunt injunction.

Alter serukae of summons. the defendant animated

nppmrnnoa. He contended that his father Holgowdn

}” 2 51% 3? g=.u:*.a.=

du”h’1″i’i’.fi€ri”‘.nb.H$6’u%-“u”u:’as.”:u;nu1
inJ::1udn1g’ khan ” B of 30 gumm in 9y.fia.3Cl. I-Iowuvari

IV

aware of any tn] mm” 11 ‘new eon ‘mum’

I-Lalegowda. After the dnnth of I-Ia1ng¢vvd£¢’. ‘al;l’.

son: are ewyjaynj the entire ».-,;11;¢ ” ‘ ;

between them of their ‘

a.%%-a:’*.’1 %.Ha.3’C.” ‘..’:i’e*.e..~.*.

assuming that the is um ,
Snnlmppn did not In fact,
the a:i%%30§5i;1’91o rejected the

rI_n;1,_t_1I;IsI_I1t, iééf nuns an 11: basis of

was as-5ii'”?m1das’i ti-*’ “”-

U ‘1:

plum’ ha is not in pnssassinn and

.. were axaminad ms PWs–2 and 3. He has

A’ 18 docrunmuia. whiohare marked as E:na.P1 to

P18. -D51 behalfofdacflaudnnts, tlmeu witnesses haw been

1|
III
I

E

15% ‘If”‘1sI1 mp. ll fl hf hf I

…….. W… .. ..,.,…,….-9…… . .. …_.,-………
mi anti ciocumsntnry avi:in11ce on record
boundaries mmuionea in the me. do-ad
boundaries me…» in ea
1’heml’ore, the k1emitg.r

u….1..1– L._.:_ 1!. 1-1.. ………….. Q1-.1-1-..»…. ._1:..”._f.Aem_

far back as on 3o.5.1%94o,~ mg. iii: the names

of the p1ann.1ff’ ‘ in praunmpt1va’

value. that for man-

thg Igngl

…….: auififin all ‘ Eh

tw property. The: manual’ on
$6 ne1thsr’ the phunt1E’ ‘ nnr his

.’ V. .’w as_i.r1 of the property at any point of

‘H-In-lrcl-Juli:

haitixlg reiief of ponaoaaion and i’.’necrei’o1~e, ma

..Q…-.. :. am fir .1….–.1…..+;.-…

n run that the phintiffhns failed 1:: establish

‘me and the suit is not maintainable and

annordizgly, dismissed the unit.

‘.._…1 ‘Lu. flu’ a-1.1% :IuaInIIJv|.Q.I\II 0:13 alga.-An A.’ flit’

fifigrmuu; Hy J 5″I.l.n.I. uvuuvv VJ. I.-Luv

t1-:in1Cnurt,t1np1a1n’ _nrqu1l1’A Appeal ’11::
h /
‘MX

A,C[f;9-*1; L”

apfaaflaie an r”aa*p’pr”ar:-iatian af ..__u;—*-…m-

oomidtsmtion has agreed with Emma

11-1:1′ Cam-t. and dismissed ” » j

1-nun-nmfi 1»-.anugg,n;gnnm11n 191′-T nu ;.r_;, 1

LIIIIIUII rink aOI’W’U’u Iv

cmcnrauon of uni 1 i

E’
E
3
5%
2
i
‘5’-

1

a
3
‘I’
1
I.

15.1.1237 which in
a ‘3 30 yum old is produced

as Ex.P9, the title In the

Tharefore, the trial Court

34″” “”x

.3__11_.1

a———n ‘km.

K-l§

.__’_–.;::.._;’_.1’~ . _~_:…___ _..___. .’_ ._…. 1… ……..¢.
. ‘¥I_Dl1ImlJ.’EJ,’.EI:.. ES31’lJi.l.fl l:1′.I.’I’J.l’ .I.l.l. ul:II…uuu1g, Iu u,rII.u|. vuu.

X of title.

5.Idnnoti1ndamraubutanceinthosa1d

mun-mtinr1= -3I_aI_:t_i_n11_ 34 gfthg $mc;fi,:_: Rglxigffigt it

~–r-:—–u–w–u-my—.-. —- ‘..w_7

……_I_.. I- __

Oiflfirfiiaiiffijififififiwznnflfiiiiflo’

:1.

U1

A

I”!
I

_.._2.._
‘ to I

proper!-yiilasasuitfinrduclnrnizinnandoznatu unfo

-‘=”‘I

f

…’;-

thafi the flaw in its %m1′: -….-…:’1_d.¢-‘-..1…….h–

1:: grant declnrafinn aha. Wiran u11n1’ ” ,

was nut in posaaaainn of tha priaperty. 2

declnruttion of title without mum; *

ni

‘1’-..-.2.–m.».~=, t..e ….=.-J-.a..r

dinlhsing the as.-= %.m-saw;

Howem, it has to file a
suit far daclnxfltinu viuw of the
matter, 1 queauan of law

-uvh’-‘sh, t!:I.i!.I eg_=:_1;1_d_ 4%

wmah W ” .i-rm appem” is uufunuafi

at

” 11V’;../..V.4’o’;’.’.”.i.’;.:…¢..4:’.” ” ‘
I