IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGTASEQTRE DATED THIS THE 23"' DAY OF 0CTOBE.R;.T'Z'O:'1'VL'1'Sj'= BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
REGULAR SECOND APPE1A:L.No.E.1661’QF
BETWEEN:
ThippeShappa,S/0 Odo \/e€.£E.1li:E513I:1,
Aged about 55 years,’-AgrE:Cu1TuT}:St,.<'
R/0 Shettiha11yV€I.i1ia;gé,. _ '
Kasaba Hob}?-', Hgsaéiilrga Ta}-uké _ '
ChitradugfggVD'i~S1;1'ici:.: 577% 501'. ~ TS:
…APPELLANT
(By S11r:i".v..AB.*–K. Map j'u.1:Tath;'4<\::d'*.zoc2{te)
AND:
“”E11aT.nma « ….. ..
Wkhié C nnappara Erappa,
” ” a§bQut–u70 years,
‘
E S/”L_Channappara Erappa,
_ _ Aged about 40 years,
_’ B_0th~are agriculturists,
H R30 Shettihally village,
~ V’ “‘KaSaba Hobii, Hosadurga Taluk,
V’ Chitradurga District -~ 577 501.
…RESP(NI}3NTS
continued in possession of the suit property. The de~fe”nda~nts
denied the gift deed dated 5.8.1978 as being in _
property. it was also denied thatv–there’ was ireivjenueix
proceedings in respect of the suit property. ii
On the basis of those triahli framed
several issues casting to prove the
same. Insofa1′:..»_ii1e concerned on
examination ioif was held that the
plaintiffihadi However, on the issue
regarding”‘possessioingfpthe–.i,:Atiiai” Court had concluded that the
piaintigffipapd eiistabiished hisipossession over the suit property oniy
“i(:)’I”[ .the of tbeiiboundaries pertaining to Survey No.55/3
ai?d”S_u;rvey”_~biE_oii§V}V18. Though it was denied by the plaintiff that
_q Survey which was the subject matter of gift deed under
S..jjwhic’h.pAthe piaintiff–purchaser was said to have acquired the iand
S was never corrected as being Survey No.61/LB and further, it was
S4 on the basis of the boundaries of theiproperty in Survey No.61/1B
being incorrectly described by the defendant in an earlier suit in
O.S.No.206/98 and therefore, it was held that the plaintitfhad
established his possession over the suit property?”””i”‘h_i§,,,
challenged in an appeal by the defendant. though.’thei:iipvl.ai’1itiffii”
not seek to challenge the dismissal of the ‘insofar as therelief
of declaration was concerned. lT–he”~l.oweri’ appellate “Court while” i
appreciating the evidence’ ,has yp’ointe’dril’e.ut se\?er*alwr”infirrr1ities
notwithstanding which the pitocieeded to hold that
possession yin :__o_fl the was established by the
plaintiff.lr.The’ 1ewet;;ippe1’ie ieecom has at length discussed the
several doctinrents and has pointed out that it was not established
‘~ by thathe…w.as in possession of the suit property. it is
challenged in the present appeal.
ii’ _ close reading of the findings of the trial Court as
ii”~’««___well as” lower appellate Court, the findings of the lower
syappellate Court are accurate and based on sound reasoning. In
” that light of the matter, there is no substantial question of law that
No.55/3B and not 61/1B. Hence, the substantia} question
sought to be raised wouid straight away have to be A
against the appellant.
5. Accordingly, the appeal
*a1b/–.