Sri Ramanagouda vs Sri Chandrashekhargouda on 17 June, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA,    _

DATED THIS THE 17%» DAY 09 Jt2M.E,.'42QOa'B:: . 3

BEFORE

THE HOWBLE MRm,1Sr;c13 H.31L1.}Ai*P..'f A "  

w.2>. No.14126i2§§e7 

Between:

1.

Sri.RaJ;nanagouda  V V ' 
S/0 Guttappa Muéaqur * _ 
Aged a_b€:%u_.VtV:56  ,   u j'

Ric;   A

Bijapur   _ «.

SI '<1 Gv.tta;v"Pa Mtidaiiar

 about 59  "
 _vAgx'ic1:_ltuxc,' «  -7

 ~ RIO  Tq. Sindagi
  

V Sfisalnagouda
' .,.v:-14¢. Féagnagouda Mudanur

 about 30 years

.  6 Binjalbhavi, Tq. Sindagi
' . __Bijapnr District

Srishivanagouda

Sjo Ramanagouda Mudanur
Aged about 28 years

000. Agriculture,

Rio Binjalbhavi, Tq. Sindagi

Bijapur Disirict. .. pzarrrraonsns

(By Sfi. Jagadish Patil, Adv.)

L1! .



3. Aggrieved by that, the petition.¢1'_SE_«  

filed this writ petition.

4. Tm learned ce.u;1seI * for  

contended that the appellate' vVé;as:_V':ncVit  in
m,_,,,.,,7 H W um ma:  He also
submitted that._the1'e_.is  and therefore,
the "at    3=istified in mm
  He, therefore,
    Verde!' cannot be sustained

 -5,.  this, the learned counsel for the

 A  subgixitted that the trial Court and the

    taking into consideration that the

respozidefit has been using the suit Way since more

   A.th__an  ymrs and he has made out a prima facic case,

 granted injunction and therefore, the impugned

' V' " " erder does not call for interference.

 

LY/.



 V.      _ 

6. i have carefuily considered the  

made by the learned counsci for t_he:,partx__ ~. 1:1'; .'  '

7. The point that ariscs for  i£;,." * V'

Whether the     for

intexfercnoe?

8. It is  tor declaration
that the   right over
the suirway;  that he has been
using   than 20 years. The trial

Court and otla1tev.aV1VVj;3__t-:'VI1ate talcum' g into consideration

 

i
and also the Commissimf\r1'%:pon
'W

  V  held that the respondent has been

and the petitioners are obstructing

V Tiioréfom, they have granted injunction. I do not

‘A ‘V V’ valid reason to interfere with the order passed

tra1l’ Court or the appellate Court. Therefore, in

my considered View, there is no merit

petition and hence, it is liable to__b¢ ‘4 ‘V

9. Accordingly, it is — .

Bss.