High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M K Harishchandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri M K Harishchandra vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2009
Author: H N Das
V TEES RS5-K IS FILED UNDER SECTION E00 OF (TC AGAINST
THE JUDGMEEBT AND DEGREE DT.2'.?..9.2007 PASSED 
R.A.NO.166f2i}O4 ON THE FILE OF HE E ADDL. {TIV-="'H.. JUDGE

{SI?..DZ'€). MANGALORE UK. D133:-QSSEQG TIE EEPEAL  
CONF3R}eflNG Ti-E ;'i"EE-DG}.*iF.}ET ;".E'*ED DEC-FEE DT.1§}..2_.Z{?'3é€L-  V' V.
?ASS}"i_f} EN C}.S'NO.555i2£)£}3  TEE FILE OF THE. I    j" '

IUDGE {_JR.DN)_. ;'\zI.*'&;'€GALORE.

THIS APPEAL C'C3EvfiE~E(} ON FOR Af,3M1's:?::Q:¥;  

"IHE COEERT E}ELI'.5F.P.F,D T£-fi?. FOLLQ'3.fl}$G; T A. 

J{'DGJIE;§:jf

This second appeal is diregted  ';"f.,1;§ig.z~a*:::.»ér§i"'  {:£€3C1'€$
dated 29.03.2904 in 0.3. N0. 5$v5§*'£.£.V?;{}3Ap;a;$séc1 J!.)3:}"'*tVl,'1'f.:.:I'Agiditicnal Civil
Iudge (Junior Division} at Zfiaiangaigre:   hearse dated
22.99.2007

in RA. §:;T5%;f2<:«r:i§:. 1;$.as;ééc::cii§i1 Judge (Samar
Division) at 1*»-iangzziiczrfa fif to deciars than: the
isnder cum auétianv _a.:;5;£16g3i, 111111 and void.

2. Appe1ier;*2;§.,~:; thé”–p}$1i:itiff fizspondants ara the defendants

before {ha 4′.§’ri3i nil’-~3urt. Ea. judggzneni, for cenxsenience, the games are

Znrsferféd ifitiéeizi’ igefore the Tria£ Ceuxt

L’ .3. T£~”1a1§:;€ifi”ha£!AVjtakan at: 16353 same iand frsm {ks regpondenis

‘ V’ under E;;.?.”I far 15% ‘j§1;i’r’g<}sfi Gf caztvmg 9:: E115 busirzsgs ef :::2ns£:*u<:ti<}r2

_ …_;2:1éi.r§§a:iréfm§%<:.§1afi£sad beats, The iand taken en iease in; the piaintifi" is

t£:r"t§;e rxfver called Gumpura. In cider {I} take the mats from zivrzr

._te'-the Afagaséfl Iand, the giaintiff cengtmcted a ramp ané he was using the

H ' sa,m5e"'§é;- btisinegs purpose? The rcspcmdemts issued direxstions {:2 the

d LN:\–«*'

'F.

vi.

Wlatatlzer tha plaiatiff preves {hat defendants have no right
ta caliact ramp fee’?

Whether this plaintiff preves Ehai Tande1″»cum»-Auctien.

notice No. HAR:8:2(}03-{)4 datad 11.{)8.2OO3’7«i§Sue§§-15?;

defendant Na. 3 is iilegai?

What,’-that the suit is bad far wafif.;3f

Sectien 80 of CPC’?

Wheflxar the gaiaintiff is e11ti§3.s3dii}f9:?_r%s:’E–i;f se1i1g§§’1€?._ _. ii

‘J;-“hat oréer or decreié? T . . 7

4: Befere the Triaifleurt ihfi.fii§fi1{ifi Aaiganiinéd as P.W.i

and got marked EXP, ATE; ‘£::;.–a;’m’x:ed 011$ wimrzss

215 mzizi and gxrii “‘E::.D’§’§.”Th¢ Triai Cciunt an

appreciation {Sf picédizaggs, ef§a£ia:iid’£§§>cu:z2enta:’§* evidemse dismissed the

iliii €.’:f giainiiffiundei-1° –5@i&gmen£. Aggieved by this judgnfint

of the ‘1’;-ie=.iV<:;m, if1€§ia£n?:iff fii_–.d*a}i ap;3ea§ in R3. '#30, 16632984 and

«same t'::3_ £1ismi§s'ed;—-E*Ience, this seceizd agpeal.

' 1"I:icug}i* iiiaiier is listed for adiziissian, {ha same is heard an

Vmerits '£:i;v* 1Vé.j"'..F2!:I:'i'i€'a€i advecates (in both {he side and pemssed the

szzéim apgéai .§é§::«§§'sV.

i * ié: “3?-E1: material on recard dismisses that under E:v;.P.1 semis} land

_i§-i”éé’ ieésad by the éefendants in faveur zif piaimtifi” far the Eéllmfl-S6 ef