High Court Karnataka High Court

Veerabhadrappa vs Gurappa on 8 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Veerabhadrappa vs Gurappa on 8 August, 2008
Author: H.Billappa
iN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA.i{5§: ~ 
CIRCUIT' BENCH AT GULBARGA   A'
BEFQRE'~. %  V   

THE HONBLE MR.  _

DATED THIS THE '%ati§~;)AY AC}F_AEJ_Gri:JAS5I"'2'G08
REGULAR sEc0ND_jxPPEAL 1srs.«'z@_/H_:§2oo4
BETWEEN: V  '  ' ' 

V¥§ERABHADR:'%.PPA  jj '

  
AGE,n%.As_oufr 'i:%.,_¥.Ea.Rs.,_ ' «
OCC.WEA's2'ER " - '

R/c>,,nuBALc;L::v:::}r'v:L1;A<::E; 7
rm.H:;mszAB_aD;«ms*:*:.31:;A;:~,

REPR'E;SEN'I'EI}.E5Y .i+~;Is"a_A'.;»1oLDER
NAGAPPA, - -.   Hp "V4/VT
* ' ' .. PETETION

my Mia s. S;  .A$SGCIA'I'ES, ADVS.) 1/

 G:;WA

 S,/C} BHIMANNA DASA
  A{}ED/70 YEARS, OCC.BUSINE3SS

'' A. , ASI-EOK

S/O SHIVAPPA CHANDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

3. RACHOTI

Sf O.SHEVAPP'A CHANDA
AGED" ABOUT 54 YEARS,

1/

 RESPONDENTS

ALL ARE R] QVILLAGE DUBALGUNDI
‘I’Q.HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR

(R-1 TO 3 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

-an-

This RSA is fixed U/8.100
Judment. and Decree dated” 2–7′.O’fif.2Q{)’4.. in; ”
R.A.N0.15/2004 on the file {;f the Civfl’ .J udga~~..%(_Sr,,I_D’n.)

Basavakalyan Camp, Humn.éLba<3._, A' partiy »a1iowii1g' the
appeal and modifying t1*£e-Judgmrgent azrzé' dated.
19.12.2003 passed in O';vF3,'No.289,I2i)Q(}: o~: 1"ti~:.c' file 'of
the Pr1.Civi1 Judge (Jr.Dn.) 'H11mnabad. ' ' i

This RSA cosIiiI1g'._oIf:~ vf<"):*_'*vhea1ing this day, the
Oourt made the fo}1ow:.i1'1g:*-~ 5' 9' v

This is . _'

2. The p1aints1i’ flied V s1;it*._ii1« §).S.No.289/2000 for

permaxlcnt The Court by its Judgment

and 2003 has decreed the

the respendents herein have
bgfom the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)
RV.’A.No.15/2004. The Appellate court
and Decree dated 27*’! July 2004 has

:ffl1e appeal in part and reversed the Judgment

Lu

and Decree passed by the Trial Court in ‘as it

relates to Sfhntirlg of injunction is concer-fled,. 2

3. Ageievee by that, t1xe%apc;>é13afit%1§e:~¢1:iehgétofiied i

this appeal.

4. At the timerof the this Court
has formulated the questions of

law for co_r1sideration:g –.

(i) Jtifie Court is justified
_ Wit;”;~–‘i:’ega1’d to two side

avails; in terms of its findings?

(ii) __ iifidiiigs of the First Appellate
3 it ~:i_.svan’acceptab1e one in the light of the

1″ available on record?

learned counsel for the appellant contended

jthe Appeliate Court was not justified in reversing the

.V:»i’o?.1dg1nent and Decree passed by the Trial Court,

regarding injunction. He also submitted that the

appellate court has failed to consider the evidence on

V

record ifl proper perspective. Further, he submitted that
D.W.1 in his evidence has admitted that ex: 1.6:.

the appellant herein has put up the –s.w”it.l:1iI*;

the boundaries of his Sgsfihas’

interest in the Walls and COLtI.’tJ

was not justified in Iecoftiizlg e’ fi_ndi;ig:thet”tI1e southern
and westem walls areV,ceIfi_1:z1o:1. and’ therefore, it cannot

be sustained in t’

2 6.. ‘representation on behalf of the

resgioxgients, served.

A_ I heifetéeaxefufly considereé the submission made

counsel for the appellant

I find considerable force in the submission of the

At ‘T counsel for the appellant, for the reason, the suit

is fer permanent iinjuncfion. The Plaintiff claims, he

is the €)WI1€I’ of the suit schedule property and he is in

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property

12/

and he has put up the eo:1structio;’1»V.. the
boundaries of his property. He has P1
to P10 and examined four “.1:

have examizled three it
to D8. Ex.P1 is the “land
mutation extract, . .. Ex. the _ ‘eohstreetien permission.

EX.P4 is    & P6 are the tax
paid mcciets.    'er Taiuka Panehayat.
  is notice issued by the

C£§1fan1– documents and the evidence of

the show, the p1aintifi’ is the owner of

V’ siiitn’ property and he has put up the

within the boundaries of his property.
this, D.W. I in his evidence has admitted that

ie. the appeilant herein has put up the

é it “—.._eoiistr’uction within the boundaries of his property and
~’ V faxes no right or interest in the waits. Therefore, in my

considered view, the appellate court was not justified in

recording a finding that the southern and western walls

V

are Common and therefore, it Cannot in law.

Questions of Law answered accordmglyfg’ ‘:.Aj:’ 4

9. The appeal is ‘4
J udgment and the; in
so far as it relatss to 3 western and
southern walis set-aside and the
Judgmeylfiand the Trial Court is

Sd/is
Judge