- '(By_':S«ri RS VNANj'uN.A.TH, ADV.) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1233 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2e10_ BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JuST1CE JAWAD RAHEM' . R.S.A. NO. 6 9,3006 BETWEEN: A_ SR1 K T CHIKKA THIMMAIAH S/O SR1 DODDA». : ' JABEGOWDA ' - AGED ABOUT 42 YRS, R/OATAA'EALAwAD'I--...S KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR * } MANDYA~57I 401' T ~ _ ..."APPELLANT (By Sri M S PURUSHOTHAMA RAQ,. C;Mv.VENKATA REDDY, SR1 H.M.SURESH AND SR1'KE'SHAVA.,OO"AD.Vs3) AND SRTT ~.PUTFTA'E3.;WA'M.Y"--. S/O SRI 'ci--H11<T<SANDM'AENNA;THIMMAIAH A'(_§E'D ABO'UTTAE.4'7 YRS " _ R/O ..ArsAL.AwA--DjI. _ KOPPA MADD--:_JR,- MA~NDYA~...'§71 401 '-A " A RESPONDENT A-RRSATTTSP-EILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE A':uDG%EMvENTT &}D'EcREE DT.16.11.05 PASSED IN R.A.10/O2 ON,__THE_.FI!.;ET" OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) MADDUR, DISMISSING' APPEAL & CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT & ;,~.__'A-..DEcREE__r:aT.15.12.01 PASSED IN OS 360/91 ON THE FILE OF ' j;.,THE..PRL.CIvIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., MADDUR. "This appeai coming on for admission this day, the court ._d__é|ivered the foilowing '<" 2 JUDGMENT
This is piaintiff’s appeai against the judgment in
R.A.10/02 dated 16.11.2005 on the file of Ciyi.!V_:”J_pd.ge,
(Sr.Divn.), Maddur, dismissing the appeal and
judgment in o.s.36o/91 dated 15g.g1gV2.g2oo11ittdi:ijfiithei»:ryi’:ed
Civii Judge (3r.Divn.), Maddur, d_isrr_i’i’ssi’ng?._the” sd:t_y,y’=ri-.e
appeai is pending admission’:_fi’–o_Vm 200126.’ Respjovndgent
entered appearance in response___tVo..the_vnoticet ii
2. Heard.
3. From the case ipvapeirs Vmade°».ayai5.i’a:bie, it is seen
appeiiant fiie.d–.. a:’}’Suiti inieS1C..g35Q/’sii’tiaiming to be the
absolute No.212 in Abaiawadi viilage
measuringeayst4w_estf1:_3’~«.__yar’ds and north–south 19 yards,
navifig ‘msyrciiesedj it’vid*e a5 deed of sale dated 23.6.1986 from
floneV’VThimrnego’wda Mayanna. He aiieged defendant had
:’dee.n Vi’nvaVi%;vi«ri’gV.Aseye4rai attempts to trespass on the property
. fl and””aIsov___vd’e.stroyed the compound waii. Therefore, he fiied a
isagitgfor permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
_ ‘interfering in any manner with his peacefui possession.
-4-.*: Defendant entered appearance and resisted the suit
-x
3
inter aha contending that he is the absolute owner of the
property which is adjacent to the schedule property-;,j To
prove his title, he averred Mayanna and his your1g_e’r.VVbroth’er,
Chikkathimmagowda had sites nos.212[:i’fanafl”‘2%1c2[3%”‘….
measuring east–west 36′ and north¥soLjt’i: ._1¥’-l_’.
site no.212/1 measuring 36’_x 14’14’to:”his
Chikkathlmmagowda under a orsaie’rda~:elari;’3i.’93973;’A
therefore, Chikkathimma~g_owda'”w’li-oi’ owned the”‘adjacent site
bearing no.212/2, became-lthelfow’ne.r:_:lof_’.:’ptO_perty measuring
36′ x 28′. He§.va’verpi’ed that s.ince”‘tlhj_e.Vplafinltiff claims to have
purchased the .C’jl:iil{§fiAat–liimmagowda, he could
not have a_colLjilred..,Vti3’tle ‘larger than the extent than what was
the proplertfikieofl ‘Chil{ka_th.i_nfi’ahagowda. In other words, he
averred’ the plaintiflf has talseiy shown the measurement as
“V395: .2”}”*:’and.c_._that to the extent in respect of the land
Ai’mea_st£rin§~«._3′.ix..-V13′ has no relevance because if at all the
plaintiff,__*ha,d?’purchased, he could have purchased the
uh”4″‘–.V:L”proaperty’..–of Chikkathirnmagowda who was the owner of land
extent of 36′ x 28′, and the total extent cannot be
% …beyond that.
4
5. With this plea, both sides led evidence and produced
sale deeds in their favour. Defendant on his part further laid
claim in respect of land belonging to Panchayat,7′..§§uring
evidence, the trial court noticed plaintiff had
clear admissions, one of them being that..sde4f€f:£Id’a:nti.Ais
occupation of land beionging to thePanchavatf4._Si.n’ce’-.o_ne:
the boundaries to the prope’rt3/g owned” by
shown as Panchayat land, thevlvlétfial _court-._hfleiI’d plaintiff has
admitted defendant is belonging to the
Panchayat. A . l
6. Toe second _aspgec4t:”notice’d was, plaintiff had failed to
produce wtiat,,was_ e5”i 5?’ or only 36′ x 14′ x 2. On that basis,
l«the,v”trVialE’7court. heldmthe plaintiff had failed to show he is
Aentitlegdis-for-..,anfjorder in respect of land measuring 39’x 57′,
. and “-«accordi.n.fglv dismissed the suit. Against it, he was in
reiterating the same plea.
~The appellate court, on reappraisal of evidence, has
-confirmed the finding of the trial court.
“W ,
“V
5%
E
._g___/
5
8. Considering the reasons assigned by the trial court
and appellate court, it is seen the piaintiff had failed to show
that his vendors were owners of site measuring 391’T5<s.57'.
The document filed by him showed that his venc'f~ors_jVha_d'.j'thiVt;e
in respect of property measuring 36 ' x14' view
of the matter, the appeliate court
of the trial court. it 1 it it 'i it
9. Even on re–appraisaI of the’t’arTn_Vateria|V’on seen
the piaintiff had faiiecifto esita’bi:is_i_i.’fliawfuI’possession in
respect of the property though of
course he had” wa’s:’.V’o*wner’*’to-the extent less than
that covered”r_&u’nde’r The finding of fact
appreciating’ theVV’e–vxidenVce__’on_v does not give rise to any
St}’b’~5tv?_3nti:§_i’:«:qi§§:fsti.9hV.’of”}a.w_..v In the result, the appeal fails.
The–con.current’fin’dién’g_of the courts below is confirmed.
Sd/*
JUDGE