Lilly D'Souza vs John D'Souza on 3 November, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Lilly D'Souza vs John D'Souza on 3 November, 2009

Bench: H.G.Ramesh

R.S.A.NO.557[2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE  I I I I

Reguiar Second Aggeai l'§it$I;'5SI7   

BETWEEN:

LILLY D'SOUZA

D/O POOLA D'SOUZA
AGE: 57 YEARS V
R/O HANGLUR VILLAGE

KUNDAPURA TALUK ..  :   
UDUPIDISTIRICT-576 201,.   '  .;'Ai'PELLANT
{BY SR1 VYASA  A':)v<j_c:A"rﬁ'.}.V_V  " 

AND: . . I . ..

JOHN D*33oU_zA  

s/0 CLEMENT DSOUZAV " V. 

AGE:59YEARS» "  ,. 
R/O HANGI,UR.VVI'LLAC__xE3_V  ~~
KUNDAPURA '1'AL-UK" -

 . &_UDUPi5'.:DI:S'I"RI CT M '576 __ 201 ..RESPONDEN'I'

 {BYISRI s,sz.;sII§1'B:12;LA FOR SR1 VIGHNESHWARA.S.SHAS'I'RI,
 ' AD'vQ_C.;y1ir,s.1 

",'*1'H1s.'R:.'s.Azi.. IS FILED U,/S100 OF' CPC AGAINST THE

_ JUDGMENT  DEGREE DATED 2.12.2006 PASSED IN
 v._R.A.I\}'O.~19f~_200I ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE {SR.DN.],
 KIIJNDAPURIA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DT .16.}.2001 PASSED IN

'O.A.S.--I_\IO'.252/88 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE

-  {JR.DN.], KUNDAPURA.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG

"jwrrﬁ I.A.I/2008 THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

I"*'OLLO'WING :



R.S./Q. No. 557(2007

JUDGMENT

Heard on E.A.E/2008 filed by the appevlV.1éi:r'1ute..V seeking permission to withdraw "the _s;ti'it' O.S.N0.252/88 (out of which this§ec0ncl_--*apta:eal'*~lrja.g "

arisen] with liberty to prosecute Vthe::'s11l)s'eq.uAeﬁt"stlit filed by her in O.S.No.177' /2e'02~t§eefe:~el the eeeeee: the II Additional Civil Juelge for declaration and injunetierrl very property which was ./5ul5'~l._'§Vet' " iﬂllﬁﬁ suit in 05' NQ252 . ' learned counsel appearing"»far'"'ttie3 support of the appiicatten; of the judgment of the Horrble Sulpremea 'C_0A1',.,rt'~i.'--:i ANATHULA SUDHAKAR Vs. '[(29--98) 4 SCC 594], which reads as . . . . . . . . . Where the plaintﬂ beltieving that the defendant' is only a allﬁespasser or a wrongjid claimant without ' 'title. files a mere suit for irgfunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title R.S.A. NO.557(2£3£3?

claimed by him, which raise a serious dispute or cloud over the plaintiffs title, then there is a need for the plainitjﬁ to amend the plaint and convert" the suit into Of1€_=:fblI'f 'V' declaration. Alternatively, he may . the suit for bare iryunction, of the court to file a conq9retierts_it}e for 2 V' declaration and suit for declaration with eo'n.seq,aentiai. even after the -«..i.ftii1riction it dismissed, where the ="ra..tsed:'V..orilu the issue of "issue of title." __

--------

,.-the light of the above

2. In - Vopplrii observations"'of'th..e','-Holfltﬁle Supreme Court and on the the "caseﬁhere is no need for the appellant to in O.S.No.252/ 88 to prosecute the suit v_.(;'.,,l_E3},~i\lllVo.177/2002. With this observation, " / stands disposed of.

this stage, learned counsel appearing for the T appellant submits that in the light of the above observation made by this Court. the appellant does not Sty R.S.A. NO. 55752007 press this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

Appaai dismissed.

Sh1/ --Ata

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court