, A1: megs
nMast.ivH'0b1i, Malur Taiuk,
VKc:l.ar District »- 562 1 18. ...Appe1Iants
{By Shri. K. Shrihari, Advocate)
AND:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE '~
DATED THIS THE 28*" DAY DE OCTOBER;_§"fiD«'1s'%,%.'..£4
BEFORE J A
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTECE ANA:j~:D
REGULAR SECOND AEREAL 1~i0..A: i2Q5".f_Q 5
BETWEEN: '< ~
1. Venkataswamy _ i V
Aged 55 years, A 5' "
2. Muniyzj;;p:e;:VVL:V:'- _ __
Aged.-5'O44yé§{:_1Vr$., 'V A'
3. VNaray'aIi'as;Aéa':;1:DyA.,§° " A A
,VAgedR'4I}v_yeaii$§ '
4. GoYi1'~F1aPR€.i' ..
Agec1.,3:3. years; * '
years,
Chuikkav .Vé1fi<2i.tadasary
And re'sid5c'fits of Obalahatti viliage,
6
Ex}
I. Gopalappa
Major,
S/o N amballappa
2. Narayanaswamy
Major,
S/o Doddamannoji,
Both residents of
Oblahatti Village
Malur Taluk, __ _
Kolar District ~-- 562 118:' 'M i' i'.;:,Respondents
(By shri. Ab_hifilc7:tV'_'-.R, lAayo¢ateoporalelllgumar & Kumar for
Respondent_No.'E . '
This Reg'u13ar_Seco11diAppe_al filed under Section 1.00
of Code of"CiViVl Pfocedilre, l908i,wagainst the judgment and
decreegdated .15;{t4l.20eot0-gassed in R.A.No.3I/2003 on the
file of theull Addltiional C'iyil*J{:dge (Sr.Dn), Kolar, itinerating
at Malur, dismissing the appeal and confirming judgment and
decree dated E-8.VO1'.i2003 passed in O.S.No.235/1.997 on the
- % meter the Principal Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Malur.
1 Second Appeal coming on for Admission
this-,day', 'the._court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
i Heard the counsel for the appellants.
2. The appellants were the sons of the plaintiff in a suit
for declaration to the riglé of way over the defendant’s
property and the defendant in turn had fiied a suit'”—-for
injunction restraining the appeiiants herein from..interfe1s-iifigii”
with the suit properties. There was no dis_p:_:te_:
respective titie and possession ofitheT-appeiiant.si”sin’ee«__the,.i
appeiiants were only seeking’i_’punderiiianiiagreenaenjt:nfhsaiei
where by they had been grantediiiipossessioni. “H.Qw_ei”ver, the
triai court did not so as there was
no controversy’iinififespectgoif:iposses_s.i:on parties. The
a road as ciaimed by
the property. The trial court
had, on of the pieadings and the
evigierice, found that apart from a stray entry in the record of
.i ‘rights existence of a road which was in different ink
‘-from entries, there was no othet document to
support the existence of a road which had been formed over
“ii i.the*defendant’s property. In this regard, the Deputy Tahsildar
__who was a witness in the case as PW.~4, had deposed that
even if the entry is to be accepted as being genuine, there are
no supporting documents, such as a Survey Sketch and the
S
Village Map, which would reflect the existence of thee-toad
over the defendant’s property. Further, the ernpha,tic.i”
the appellant was that it is not in dispute that_the_ife..is
land in existence over the defendant_’s p-ropiertiyp and–itti i .i
kharab which forms a road or’-?eI’«-..the suit Thep triali
court however, has opined that_a’e.sencei of iniclication
as to the nature of the’ the absence of
description ofithereof over the
description of the road
nameljfl existence of the road
on evident or clear, it would be
dangerous to gra_nt’sucl’i relief in favour of the appellants and
, ‘has, on i,r1f1rrnities in the pl_ainti.ff’s case, dismissed the suit.
‘ =The¢sarne.”_hav’in’g been carried in appeal, has been affirmed in
theiiappeali by the lower appellate court. It is that which is
3’ ii.sou’ght to be challenged in the present appeal.
3. Insofar as the suit for injunction filed by the
respondent W»- defendant has been decreed in View of the suit
§