R.S.A.N0.852(2009
AND M1SC.CIVEL.NO. 1 1038/2009
_ 3 _
1N THE HIGH comm' 01+' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23m: DAY 01+' OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE ' E
TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ' E.
R.S.A. N0.852/?:.JOO€_3"
and Misc.c:ivit.N0.110E382'2bo9EET\/I/VE.
BETWEEN:
SR1. SADASHIVA SHETTY
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. A '_
1. MRSSULOCHANA SHI§3D'I"IV-11" : -
MAJOR, W/O SADASHKVAE-SHEET? ' '
2. KUM.
1)/0 LATE SADA.SHVA SHE '
MAJOR, ««««
BOTH R/AT KARANJE VILLAGE --
D.K.DIS'£7RECT ~ _ * ...APPELLAN'1's
{BY SR1. N.sUKUMAE ,;A1N~--,_A13iI.)
moss' MASCARENHAS
AGED 54 . V V
W/Q URBAN' ALBERT MASCARENHAS.
DRAKAS HOUSE. KARANJE VILLAGE
.KARKA;LA'1.'Q, DZKDZSTRICT
.. PEP BY I~1'ER;.GENERAL POWER OF
" V. '=AT"PORNEY'~~*HoLDER, MREUGES
4 Amfacumy D'SOUZA
" _R;'.A'F»SU'RLA1 HOUSE
~ - « «PUCHAMOGRU VILLAGE
TQ. RESPONDENT
». _4 KEY SR1. K.CHANDRAKANTH ARIGA, ADV.)
R.S.A.N0.852[ 2009
AND MISC.CI\1II,.NO.i1O38/2009
-2-
RSA FILED U/ S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
AND DEGREE DATED 12.03.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.531/E20105
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.} 8.: ACJM.
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE .IUDo–EMENT-.
AND DEGREE DATED 11.12.1996 PASSED IN O.S.NO. L5/}.’99_2–.__Q1\}~V _
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF. , I
MISC.CVL.11038/2009 FILED U/o»~~41_1z 5’_’R/VW’tS”151. I
cpc, PRAYING ID STAY THE OPERATION ExEczmo*:~:__ OF ;
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED ‘11.11.2;199s. PASSED
o.s.No.15/1992 BY THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, “UDUI::.
DISTRICT IN THE ENDS OF JUSIICEAND EQUITY. = _
RSA AND MIS.CVL COMING FOR ADNIIssIof.N. THIS
DAY, THE COURT
J U D 1
Heard. is Vsecond appeal.
Perused the _Cot1rts below. The
Lower reconsideration of
the evidence «S0101 eonfirmed the judgment and
decree er the””t1j;_1:a1A.C–o11’1ét0’i1r”1 the suit in O.S.No.15/1992;
I-‘.TtiI.e4 Court decreed the suit of the
filed for permanent injunction and
I for n1a_nda.tory: injunction. In my opinion, no substantial
“”-«’i.”,”‘-qizestion-of law arises for determination in this second
No ground to admit the appeal.
R.S.A. No.852 4 2009
AND 1VIISC.CIVIL.NO. 1 1038/2009
-3-
2. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for__the
appellants submits that the appellants are in
of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and ”
reasonable time to the appellants»to-volu_ntarily’4yacéiie’-.&
and to deliver vacant possession of th_e0′–plaint””Bi *
property to the respondent/
3. in the interest of juxsticel,””l appi”op”riate to
make the following orderzd 00
a] the appellants are 30121 April
2010; “~.vfa.?:_a:t,e and to deliver
v:acant* ‘B’ schedule
pi’op’erty’ /plaintiff subject
to coi’1dition the appellants file an
i1’1idertaki.n_gV”byV’ way of an affidavit to this
weeks from today to the
that they would voluntarily vacate
H vacant possession of the plaint ‘B’
V schpeziieldiile property to the respondent/ plaintiff
.0 one—or before 30m April 2010; and (ii) that they
3 drwould not induct any third parties into the
plaint ‘B’ schedule property;
BK?/0
R.S.A.NC).852 [ 2009
AND MISC.CIViL.NO.k1038/2009
-4-
b) if the appellants fail to file the undertaking in
the aforesaid terms within the time stipulatectt-..4_:’t~.V_
or commits breach of the undertaking giverp.
it shall be deemed that no time haci=._:bee11Vt’
granted by this Court to vaea’te- the:
schedule property and i1’1:’e:.pth.,’3.te~”eVent*,
respondent/plaintiff sh-ajhl bea_eit V1it:e’fty:.’Vto ht
execute the decree pase’eci”by the~t1′:ia1.V-Z Co’zE11″tV
in the suit in O.S”.I§0. V’
c) subject to the .’:’jei{1C’!V:gh1u’1Vent and
decree imp1.1gnecj, ” éffirmed;
d) MisC.CiVfi14.’I*§a:;”1 ..:VfiV.}’eC3u:for interim
stay Viutifioes not survive
for C’0I1ES’Vi:’-:l’e.I:é;fi;j(‘0I1;~
A®fi$®mfi%¢#%».
Sd/~
JUDGE