IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25*" DAY OF AUGUST, 203.0.
BEFORE ""E"
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. y>ENUGOPAvL.A~'..(:;dW'DA ."
WRIT PETITION No.213O6={2O.1.O;e:§3:4g'rCPc)"~a..,-__V 3
BETWEEN:
Sri Raju, S/O. late Mariya,
Aged about 42 years.
Represented by his PA FE~OIder,._ j.
i<.€3.Ravindra, V A
S/0. SanjivaEah,@ vCh'ti<;_|<'OniJ',~ y T .
Aged about _
R/at Kunda'hai~iupbe;'..__ g _
Athagmj Ej1ob!1.,"'Mia_ddur_'Tal'u'!<;
Mandyé
. :PETITIONER
(By Sri Harish H._\/1
£\..3\.F..D._;.. .
"E:i..:Ma-hesha, S/O.'"'i'a'tVe B.Lingaiah,
Iv V .
= ..Ageda%b.Ou-t __39 years.
. W/O. L.iV!aheSha,
A Aged. abgut 29 years.
BO'thE'are R/at Kundanakuppe,
" Athagur Hobli, Maddur Taiuk,
V. _»_b(AE'g;3ndya District.
(!By Sri C.Basavaiah, Adv.)
:F-IESPONDENTS
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to set aside the .'order
dated 5.7.2010 passed by the Principal Civil Judge(..}r';.Qn.,_)
& JMFC at Maddur, in O.S.No.191/2006, on I.A.l\i_o_._13,'--fi'leci-«
under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, vide Annexure -"*!.\j,"---.a:'rit!__."
consequently allow the IA -- 13 filed under 0rd"-.rVV25_V'-Rule
CPC, etc. etc. _ V'
This petition coming on for «'vE3gV'f
group this day, the Court made theV'foll'o_wing. ' - , «.
Qkoéns _
Plaintiff is the pet_i'tio'n.ejVé*.::' _:"l3R.ei_Eerid.ants are the
respondents. _..Su;i:t=_-i_s dec,liaraVti~o'n.._oi title and eviction of
the defendants, property and for its
demolition’ ev§i;ctio’n.V, “~.S’3uit”hvas”§been contested by filing
writter{‘~.9Atat’eri:etétV;’,” of the written statement, the
defendantlsflhavej -._ca’:egorically stated that they jointly
~”i~,.,_purfchased__the”pro..perty under the registered sale deed
2.,,:i’.C)’1:”and since the date of purchase, they are in
pos’sessVion”ii’;_andV enjoyment of the B schedule property as
absolutevowners thereof and according to them, there is a
it nfiistake’ in their sale deed which shows the “survey No. as
1,3323” instead of the description being “Sy. i\lo.:i34/9.”
iv
f
Thus, the defendants admit that the property described in
B schedule of the plaint is the property which theyijhave
purchased on 2.1.01 and are in possession and_;e’rij’oyr’rier_it’
of the same.
2. Issues have been struck. rial is’~corn”piete*-a.nti_:
when the suit was at the stal§l_1e”‘-of argurnents.”thee-vp,laiintiff
filed LA. 13 under 0 26 R ;9….cji:=c ‘for egmoipritrrieni of a
Court Commissioner.°;i«’h.e”-.fiff§.aAl’..,,C9hsidering the
application and_:th.¢ has recorded
the finding§.th§’at__ regard to the title
to for consideration i.e.,
issue Nos; ‘:1 ‘iltj’h.as__’recorded the finding that the
orai and dlo«cumentarr;1″ evidence is sufficient to adjudicate
.__the:p_ji*naptter.v’_andA’hen.ce«,r dismissed the application. The said
L’ orderep ha:_s*ljeenquestioned in this writ petition.
V 3.. the learned counsel on both sides and
perus’e.s;i_Al1the record of the writ petition.
it 4. S75 of CPC empowers the Court to issue
Vwcommissions including the one to make a local
4;’
investigation. 0 26 provides the procedure for c_a.rrying
out the commission work. R 9 of O 26 provides”fory:th4e
commission to make local investigation.
deems a local investigation to berequéisiijéel”or’*p.rope.r_j;.for it
the purpose of elucidating any ma;”cter:’.’_in’
may issue a commission to._Vsu.ch person_as._ it:..;’t’rni~nil<:s fit"
directing him to make such;y.i.nv'evsti'g_ation"and report
thereon to the Court.
5. In ti’r@fi’nstant: casse} ‘”i”ri.al Court has noticed
that there *-r.esp’e:ct’ to the identity of the
_land t3’VVVVSchedule property which
according to til-elrpart and parcel of A schedule
property. l’i”he”Tria-i Courtslhas recorded the further finding
evidence ””’ ‘placed on record is sufficient to
thevmatter i.e., issue Nos.1 and 2. Keeping in
taken by the defendants in para 9 of their
owritten statement, wherein they admit that the property in
A ~~ff’rtheirupossession is 8 schedule property and it is part and
plarcei of Sy. No.134/9 and not Sy. NO.133/3, it is
/.6
unnecessary to have any iocai inspection. In the said–yiew
of the matter, the Triai Court is justified in
I.A.13.
For the foregoing reasons, ‘p’etiVti7o_ra
merit and shaft stand dismissed. Hvowever, tne;?’r’iaE
shaii keep in view the observarti:Vo’ns mad.e_ ‘su”pra”‘v;and the
evidence pfaced on its record adnd”d–ecide._the sirrit.
~m¢¢aeiUDGE
sac*