IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA AT BAi§§§Ai§£3§?..E. _
DATED mzs THE 26th DAY 91? Q: 4. _ _: ”
BEFORE}
THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUsf;’IcE”A_’S I3oII?Aia:;’;a§é;_V_’ 3
REGULAR SECOND A§¥’PE’AL’No.643}T2b0éf§
BETWEEN :
1
_sH2MO«::A’V’rApa;K~–._
THE BETTERMENT CQb.’£M3’T’FE’}E £«”’::::R’ ; ..
C3OVERNM,T£N’I_’HIGHB1V}%PRIMARY – “
SCI~IO0L,” (3A{)E’KO}?PA: A ‘ ‘V
SHiMO.GAT£*{jLU_K~v 4 V
Rsmtzi’ BY P-RESEL}–EN’? Q13′
<:<*2;*v:T:~A:,i:fr*1ffig:\:;;[:.; "
T'HE:HEAI} ' '
GCVERNM'ENT.jHIGZ4__E"R«PRIMARY
SCHGOL, GAIMEOPPP;
‘ ” APPELLANTS
sass}; G AAS”Bv£.1..e.AGANG:%DHAR, ADV.)
. ‘$2 fiix-Rfi?;.’Y;ANA RAG 8/0 (3.3. VFTGBA RAO
A AGED .€%B{>U’i’ 64 YEARS
‘ R/’O A’.N.K. ROAD
séagmoaa
V “‘;D L KFEiSE£NAPPA s/0 LAXMANA
“AGED ABQUT 53 YEARS
OCC: AGF3ICUL’1″‘URiS’T
R/C} 6’1”?! CROSS, BASA’J£~’&NAC’wUD§
SHIMOGA
‘.
judgment dated 21.9.2007. The plaintijfié
befere this Court in this second appeal.
2. The case of the ..vth(_?
that the first piaintifl” is the Betterment
of the Government Higher Pm: Sch.o’01_,V sand V
the second plaintiff isflzag hooa” tliosaid school.
Insofar as the property in ‘schedule to the
plaint, there is i_§1é§$m~u¢§i’_:a$ fichool is situated
in t;q§.»;;~;icio..:i;ano”?g11o§’–.»§::e is being run without
intexferéncfiof ro.>¥bj§z:«;f:ti(§1’3._.V_’i:x:»,’:fii1c: same. “fhe dispute in the
garesent sxiifis “£0 the ‘B’ scheéule property. It is
by that the saici ‘B’ schrzdule
jbslongs to the plaintifis for the purpose of
$531001 anfi in this regard, the pmperty is
indiééteéofisé Sy.No.26/2 mfiasming 12 acres 9 guntas in
‘V ” viilago, Shimoga Taiuk. Tim p1a;imifi’s in the altsmate
‘ };1;:;1Voso11g§1t for the judgmfint and decree that they have
J)
Li
perfecrteaei thz title in respect of the suit scheduic: pmpetty by
adverse possession.
3. The defendants had opposed the suit;V”‘£:efc§1;sfi::
trial Court by contenéing firstly that the :Ti0″[ b
locus standi to institute the suit aitd s¢:¢o;;a«1y ‘€:fi?éi3._t,
:10 right is mafia out in respcct c:f—- su:it.7*’B’§
pmperty. Them is no dispute AV’sQ}i&’e:1i1ie.’:§roperty.
L, . {‘fiK}iéw_t1:té§:’fVi*i’;§§ii*»§§C>ntc:1§§ti{5i§;$, the trial Court framed
as a$.1C tn-<311siderati011. The parties had
tenfiered éfi'i;1enCc_ trial Court after analysing the
* 'evi<1éi1cg:.taV*ai]ab}éV 0':c–;—–racoxd had come to the cenclusion that
pig "511 :had in fact made out 3 cases fer granting a
décfcé the suit was deemed.
. ”s.’«f]:z£;1 H18 defendants were before the Lower
.hfs{1f;)§3Haf€ sceurt, apart fitnm contenéing with regard to the
fittéiiritg rfinéered by the trial Court with ragaxti to 111$ merits
J»
‘Ir
of the claim. relating to ‘B’ schedule .
manner of institufion of the suit ” ‘vss’a:3
questionefi. I11 regaxd, the i.o%§e:”::’Apide«lia_ie.’
flamed points for consicieratiozd 3:3 folltfiwsg V
i} Whether the _suit £i1eq§…1§gs ~f.hé: .,p:aar§:ifrs,;_s. :¢%§1ab1e
with respactA._ i:1:.\ tifié pfébgerty which is
ciairned to be pi_1>p1}r3’1fty ‘9
ii} Whezthexf the,fincii.%.:’g éfifiha Trial Judge
that . §§;3i.r§tiAff£{ n2§ve”pgf¢v§ac;v–:._h§e title to the suit
possesaian is proper
——– agg:;51’eg+¥:-.1. >
iii} __ ‘A?ifié’tE.;eVr_V judgment and decree
‘A ‘¢’i.?E?¢I’I’«’é11f1.t”~3;’:.i;3}.?.§f3X’f€.fE(‘:I}’Z5(‘,’ ‘P
iv} dfdsf’? S
A pezwisalifif the points for consideration framed by
.[%(:<)xs2§ArVA.§$p1§)t:.]late Court would indieate that the first point
wax with regaxfi to whether the present
have itxstituted the suit claiming to protect
¢guV:?f:g":am:€:'I:;t pmperty. The Lower Appellate Court has held
'th_V.:$1't' tiic plainiifis couid not haw: ixtstituieé. the suit 31161 as
auizza the suit itself cannoi: be maintained by the plaintiffs
J;
7
and in addition to the same, the other points hafv;é”a1-S'<_:a–. _
answered with reganii to the (213331: tbr adv.ers€:_':';;0s–s§essicn" 'V
which had been put forth by the pzggnujjg j;
7. Sri Balagangadhar, 1earm: d.__
the a;3pellant while assaiiing’fiie-.bjud§mV¢fit.Téf WL€})¥V€I’ ‘V
Appellate Court would cpntemii’ “”316 Léiwtzr Vfippeflate
Court was not justifiedfl’ a conclusion
inasmuch as eVe3ii£the§_}3rQb1′)¢rLy4’b€§1c:ngs “E’.o’V(30vernment, the
first théBc£fe1;%i:nenf._”Cbii1mittee which has been
consfitflted .Wifl1V °b_.Vl.é’:~:.s.iings of the Government 3115.
the:r€f<_)re the" ..b€'tte 1inxéi3._f Cfiinmittee is entitied to protect the
'~ ._iA§)<~:}s;::v1::rLgi1A;'i'g"iv*e;——-4;.%1e schcaoi and flrxemfcm the suit could
1'i8V"\'i'C"bE'€.Jé.'{'ifi$fiii"f1tEd by the plainfiifs ans? moreso Whéll the
sécfifid "being ilmhagrge of {he aziministratiozx of the
schoéyii 3130 look after the proptrty of the 301100}, and
V' as 'T 3.1,;-zrli' the appropriate person to institute tbs suit.
' Tigéféfera the Lowezr Appellate Court was not justifisd. It is
" wfifirtiaetr cantencieci that even with regard to the manner of
$
'4
«a
cemsideratien with regard to the aspect.– };3i"v "
possession, the Lower Appellate CO1_J,I'tv3:1f;1S "
8. Sri B.Rudmgowci :§,'”–~._1ea11ie::1: the * }’
mspondent hawever sogght __the passed
by the Lower Appcllaté that the Lower
Appellate Court has I1(‘.:)t§v.”:*:”‘,..(i::’4C]1VVC “sis contained in
Sscfion 79 of Appciiate Court
was ‘V V’
§”‘-,jAfi}”£}€vl€’3=5:gi£’A’::;~€f’fi$§”éE>nte11tions put tbrth and also
the manner of sequence of consideration of the case by the
:2i:=z’«._w£:}} Lower Appellate: Court thaugh the
:f(;.ndered a fimriing in favour of the plaizltifi}
the §k$¥V€{ Court has reversed the same insotlar as
“the prayfifi-made seeking for the relief of adverse possession.
A 3′.$s:.1e needs to be: COI1Si£i{2I’CCl oniy if this Court is of
View that the Lower Appellate Court was not justified in
‘ coming to the conclusion that the finding cf {ha Lower
.1
-N
That being so, the ixnpugned jucigmeni: dated ~
not cafl for interference. The appeai t11§:_reforéVbéifi:3Ig.<iéxrg§id u V'
mexit stands dispcsed 0f with no oxtlczr as CTO.sts. "
mp
hdgé