IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BETWEEN: 1. Dated: This the 2nd day of August 2010: ". BEFORE THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE V.JAGA1*a'.¥\:I}§gTI:-i4'§;N« _ S " R.S.A.No. 1365/=20; 3 THE MANAGER. _ SOUTH KANARA AGRICULTURAL DEVEI,QIf1\-IENT CO--OPERATIVE , V " - . KUNDAPURA. " 2 SOUTH KANARA A.GRIcU'L'rURAL DEVELOPMENT CO~OPERATIVE :3OCIE§IY.4LIM:}-TED; REP BYi1TS1:SSEcR3a'.1:ARY AND 'CHIEF EXECUTIVE, SCDCC II3AN.K';--;3U1-LmN_G,'-~ ' " '*<;;._ , R ' ...APPELLANTS [By Si; K ADV.) E S ----
AGED 33 YEARS.
.- ‘V ‘AIJIR
“~AGEDjYEARS.
:)R.A1§Av1ND SHE’I”TY,
AGED 58 YEARS.
H = ._ “S/0 DR A V SHETTY.
‘KADRI KAMBALA ROAD,
MANGALORE-575 O04». DK.
RESPONDENTS
(By Sn’ KANANDA SHE! KY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3.)
20
THIS RSA FILED U/S 100 or’ cpc, AoAINs15.._T1eIE
JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE DATED 08.04.20
IN R.A.NO.59/2007 ON THE FILE OF ‘
OFFICER, FAST TRACK coom, V
DIsIvIIssINo THE APPEAL AIID
JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE PASSEDEIF 1I–I’E_1.1tIéI:z;Nc’II?§AI;’ ”
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIx%;;–:,._ KUN{)A§5′.UI{A,”‘–w~ IN
o.s.No.2o2/2005D’I’26.o6.2oo.7t.’
THIS APPEAL coémey c:éI’\Ij ..ADIyIIssIoN THIS
BAY, THE COURT DELIVERED.:*:;IE”Fo’LL;owINo:
the appellants in
respect of by the defendants
questioningll the ~__conc’I;I.lt’rent findings of the courts
V 2 …..
suit was filed by the respondents-
plaintifis delivery of vacant possession and the
said suit was decreed by giving two months time to
the “appellants from the date of the trial court
l judgment to hand over vacant possession. The lower
appellate court confirmed the trial court judgment by
l
/7
F
dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants
herein.
3. Learned counsel K. it ‘* it
Ariga for the appellants 3 th.a.t~,.’ both’
courts have concurred Vonagpfacts-,. fithips
consider the grounds andfilhaving
regard to the above have carefully
gone through the below and I
find that recgordeldlllpositive findings
in the termination of
tenanfiy r “the defendants due in
payment” months of October and
Novie-rnber 20t}’5~ andrecordirig the affirmative findings
‘ on .1 and 2, the trial court considered the
evidenceléliy-of parties as well as the documents
producerdhby the plaintiffs.
4. The defendants also does not deny the
-~-factum of the lease having been entered into by
Amanda Shetty and taking note of the absence of
<3'
specific pleading in the written statement by.-.__the
defendants denying the tenancy relationshipmwfitiilathe.
plaintiffs, the trial court ultimately decreeditllheisitiiltllof H
the plaintiffs. It also directedgthle"a.pp.e11afil;$«.toV'p:ayH"'.
future profits at Rs.3,OO0/5 periémonth
of the suit till the delivery.
possession and to 'rnonths i.e.
October and November theilof Rs. 1,500/-
per month. agreed with
the trial of the matter and
took which was put at
Rs. 3 , /'*– " ' «
V "t;he___light of the evidence on record and
' recorded by the courts below, I do not
'see*a1'1Vyl of finding recorded, for this court
to ilnterafere in this second appeal. The only question
A requires to be considered is as to the grant of
l lgiine to the appellants.
%
.r
6. Learned counsel Sri. K. Chandrazqath
Ariga for the appellants sought for one year
months time to vacate the suit premises ‘
ground that the suit was filed in the .yea_r
7. Taking note of the above ‘s11bmis’sioVn, I
of the View that the appelletiits one
year three znonthlsA*~…_/.:t’i{ne:p date H of this
judgment to Vacete possession
to the Vétlso to comply with
the the trial court with
regard to payrnent, of. znesne profits.
The appellant shall above efl°ect
within two weeks,
Appeali disposed of in the
abottelvterrns. A T
Sd/-‘
JUDGE
4/ t or