D M Ramakrishnappa vs D M Chandrappa on 8 February, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

D M Ramakrishnappa vs D M Chandrappa on 8 February, 2011

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

. 1 m.
IN '1"?-If}: HIGIE COURT OF KzXRNK\.'I'jXKA AT Ei3ANGALOR;€

£}ATElD THIS 'mr.«: 08"?" my 01? f<'£*ZE3I{'UARY 2011
BEFORE:
mp: i«£0N"BLr:: MRJUSTICE: S.N.SA'i7YANA¥{z'¥§'}XI\i?>g_~   :_. A' 

MFA¢I\EO.649{)/2009 {CFC}

BETWVEEN:

B 5

so

I) M RAMAKRISHNAPPA T.  
5/ O LATE .DODDAMUN1V'E;\1_K;é\:FATPPE'; .
AGECD AEBOUT 65 YEARS, '  

D.M.GANGDHARAiAH"~.__  * 'V 
S/O LATE DoDDAMu'1\1Jr_*'aE3s_'K;2;£A§3I?A AA = 

AGED 5%iiA3"r"~1%:A;aS-.

BOTH ARE R/A*:i"3-10;88';-.  ' 
DEVAsA__NDRA*MA£N RG51),
VENUG OPALASWAMY '1?1+:MP1,E S'£'iR.}.Zi}E§T,
KR,PURAM."BANGALORE
    11111  HAQPPELLANTS

 '(;3y st:  s:VA§%§_z§' M. SR.AE)V.. FOR SHIVAPPA ;xssoc:A'1*r5s,,§;§a:'.<;

:3 32:. (ii-«§ANDRA}'PA

 .. S;/O EATE3 MUNIVENKATAPPA

* VAG..E-:1) ABC)'U'1' 59 YEARSg

VRfA'E' DEVASANDRA MAIN ROAD.

 ;VENUGOPALASW'AEVEY TEIVIPLEZ ST¥{EE§"§',
-- T K. R. PU RAM, .BANGAL-ORE

. . R.E:CSPON{)E§}'€T

A  £33,: Sré : V pA:3MANA£32-{A K.£3I)EIJAYA§ AIEV ;

2/xvehg



B925:

"i'.'Ir--IIS ME<'A IS FILED UK). «:13 RULE M:-*) OF CPC
AGAENS'? THE ORDER mt 29.8.2009 PASSED ON LA.No.1 IN
O'S.NO. 26283/2009 ON THE FILE 01+' THE': XIII ADDL. cm'
CIVIL, JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, (CCH,No.22),
DISMISSZNG THE) EA FILED um. 39 RULES 1 AND 250-3%' CFC
FOR 71:.   

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FQR HmR:3.I?i::xl*:fE::'$..T::gx3:2_

"HE: COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H __ 

JUDGME-:;§1'  A

P}aini,i.{fs in OS_NQ.262F53-,{_2OOS§'A§;fi the 

Court. Mayohall, Bangalore  c_Qmell"ul[§:l'i.ln  appeal

C'.h&ll€I1giI'1'g'   d'ei»e--dl 2l95."8V.v20l()9 passed on LA.N0s.l and
Il. F0r7t_h€  the parties to this appeal are
:r'efer1'ed tollDy!ti3Veill' :f2li:.k"b£éf0re the court below,

   VvBrirl§f"faC:s«l6ading to this appeal am:

'  lf  OS.No.26263/'2009 is filed for the relief of

gaérrziésknerzt 'i7:f1}'L£If'i£EE:i()I1 against: ::lefendanl.. The defe1"1{:la.r1l; is said

to be 21:1 fégissession :31? 3 portion of suit. propert:y' by encroaching

A  lkj'--..§,.he: sazne. in the said guit plaintiffs liked an application

'  £25; gram of temporary izxjzzrictien restraining del"<~:n.ciant from

 pz,:t.l.iz2g Lip €?€}I'1S§lE"'{1£'.'£i(}I"} in ms p<>ri.ie::en alleged '£10 be in

p{}E§5:';f3'SSi{}E] <3? §)lz1:z:§.iffs:;. In Ehe said :--;z::::1:.l in.iE.£;>::£1y on an

2 2
Way:

5



,3-

appiieation fiieci in IANGE for the mlief of ter:1.p<}rary' injtmetien
an expame erder of status quo was gt"ant.edt Subsequently
defe11ciar1t on service of SL££I1I}'101'1S entered appearance ﬂied

iA.No.EI seeking vattating the order of status.~q--::§;,.__ E*1e,1fi«::€:.

application 1'01" temporary inju_r1eti0n filed _b_V '~p1ai.ija;'i:itf£s 

app1;i::a*i.ien fileét by deferldant for  the 'ie2:;;§Var'§etVVVifitefim T

order of status que which are In IANG-s.I  'res;§ee't1veiyL

were taken up together for eof1vsiTEieratior1'V"€,e1:1i9t befowt

After hearing the Courxseinfor piztitntitffs éfnd deieritiarit impugned

order  by;  wherein application in {Al
filed b3t:pI§e:intiffe  and exparte order of status

quo granted.ea'1*1iVer'._w:a.Vs vabeated by allewing the application in

  def'e'n.de.1'1t. Being aggrieved by the said order

 as med by plainmfs,

th  ' '«7.''L:I11VA'tItvttie appeal. plairztiffs who are appeiiants ctontend

j that44"'t}}e'iaj greed father Mr.Gangappa acquired an extent of 50

..y*'aE'é§ X  yards Le, reughly abeut "E SGXEZG feet ofvaeani land

 'ettédélg a regigtered sate deedi dated 14.2.3929. Since then their

V "gtranti father was £2": pesseseien anti enjoyment. {Bf eaiti pertien

which SUbS€{§tE€§EEE:y' has {fiﬂlilfﬂ ta} their '§z:%.he1* amt} HQW' they are

§/'wk/g



,4-

in pcsssessieri and ezajoyment of said portion. According to
them, a portion of said property is eneroaehed in te by

defendant long ago. immeéiatety prior ta filing 0ftE°'.;e""a b0\re

suit an attempt was made by defendant. to fttrthef"'e:?i.g;~:ie2t%:h in

to pertiion of plaintiffs land.

3.'
,.

4. In support of their C'2}.S€:1"';)lf;1it1'CiffSCi""_O1'l

attested Copy of sketch. pretiamd by'-..Si1.:Vey<rt)tf A..ef..._133VaI.;:gaVleret~

Bruhath Mahanagar Paiike :§a»,,::11e_ N¢;§R;é2/':a009--2010,
wherein an extent of Vae:antie.e3e"urtng 133 '/2 feet on

North,  SQ  1 18 feet on west and 1 15 feet on
east is said to' be   in katha No.48/39 claimed by

a})p14it3.€iI1f;;. by.V.n.::n}:eV"D.M.Gangadhar3aI:1 one of the plaintiffs in

V:AtE<1.e:V%'"s;;r,:i:t;::A ?trj1tt_._the sketch the Said extent ES shown in green

t"'e0t0_t11§. 'v~.{3:--:;t. :§t'-.that 3. small pertien in north eastern creamer of

Rama  measuring to an e><;tent of east. to west 16 5./2

 V":»'s,;1;i  to eouth 22 feet appears ta be in possession Gf

'' -C'i12.I;ié:Irappat defendant. in the suit.

5. A copy at sate deed dated 14.21929 is else

p1't)€§t:eed by pt:atin't.t.ft'e.; the meaeuremertt. at the property

"§u_;\_?



a. as

U?

mentiened in the eaid sale deed is; 50 3,-*.:/mcis east in west": and 40
years north to seuth which comes in reughiy around 12_()'x.i 50'

appears to be seine what equei to the Ineasuren"1em:_n1e;?1_Lix:a_ned

in the sketch. The aforesaid sketch prepared 

SBMP and Sale deed of 1929 are V1370 doeunxejniﬁs*wh.iehH V

plaintiffs have reiied upon.

8. The defendant iI'1 !':_h'€~._S£1iCEA5£~5u:i'; ~;p1air1t. 

avermems independentiy ciaimV_t1{le,_te._@E1e dispmegifi portion of

the property reiying upnn. :éeVera1%.j.dnei:zn':ent.s in support of his

case' One  L 1<1;--1L__ re.gfst;e1'ed douement of the year 1954,
which isfylgaied te.V_be--jfa gi'ﬁ;__'.tie'ed under which he has acquired

eertain_pr0L15e1"ties_'V--_jnA'--._DyéiVasandr'a viiiage. In the said

- V. «_ d0uen;eni'£ne eeh'edn_ie.of the property is not referreel to by any

 ngzsnber!  i:3 r;e1'ferred to and ideniifieci by beundanlese the saiei

pre'p'erf,y='.i{e«._ai:§t;>---f1nt identified by clear ineasuremeni, except

stating ?;1"1:«::f,L }:Ac>use rneasuring 10 ankanas which Comes to

Vrgeughlgg aheut 10 squares and eeme va_ea_nE space areund that.

en that defendant is trying to claim the peﬁien which is

.  sigeﬁisfi in yeilew ee.10L.z:* in the sketch referred in earlier as his

 h _§¢;':i4:§§?=e1"?:j,z: In e:.:pp{):'E, of %:.hai. EM. 2113:) reiied upnn anmher

€«.;'=,,§



..g..

d{)L1C1'f1f':Z'ii. issued by BEEMP Suxm-*ey<)r 0fMahadev'apu1'21 which £3

eimiéar to the one which is preduced by piaimiffs.

2?'. In the said cieucinxent produced and re1.1ed'

defendant which 35 xerox Copy of eriginegff €;he"e-"e0e1d;e.::*~.'

mmbination eaniaot be L:r1.cie1*ste0cE~E3y.'i00.king" ihe._f.3;ei'*O2{ 

copy. Howeve-1: in the said e1ocu'Inef2fs te:t:iie 1ei'1,_ ofti1«e 

Side of the property already eofis-i;'rueted mad if: ;3§)'$ee.es§i0n ef V

defendant. construci;.i0n__is take_n.1i,ip._ir1.._Van afeaV_Qf_2{b0ut 19' x

20'. In the doucment  .':iim_ the c0r1strL1.c1;i0r1

activity ta1~;eri  _ by __Q.gi5endant is referred and also
c0mpieti0«n._oi'heuse   the éand where construction. is

Commenced is "2leo"shOwn.. In éhe said doucment to the west

 'a.n;:i. 'a:Iefende'1e«t's property is the property of plaintiff. Ii'

eéheee  AL'§?€f{:3"--,_d::%§Ui'E1€ﬁ{S are analyeed with reference is the

p1ea.d1'ng_€__e' eir;1§>r*ec0rd there appears to be triabie issue regarding

u  V"a{1egedz 've£ie1"ea.ehr11ent or otherwise by defendant into the

 _ ';3z'e;f>en:51,y oE'p1ai.11t.iffss. This eeuré. is; of the epinien that based on

 .V ciacuments relied ugéeon by bath gjariies it may net. be

VV po:sss;'.b1e to eeneiusively decide the rights of the ;>art.£es herein

'in the déspuied porﬁigm ef Suit; p¥<3g>e;*%};. '£'he.refe§"e, 2.2_z11;i_1 she

{oz/V:

<./

3



-';*.,

said aspect is dﬁgtidﬁdg quesstion of perm£t.ting>; any of the parties
19 exercise their' :»1.lleg<:':d title and oxvnership and to put up

c<mst.:t'uc:t:ior1 thereon is not permissible. Tl1:3r§3Vi't2;,jé;t.t,1"3e

impugned order passsecl by trial Court dated 'is

required to be set aside;

8. Accordingly, appeal filélj 

lmpugtled {fJ1'ClE3' dated 29.8.2009 paslS'€_dl'0n I,!3'*,s'.u'l1 

aside. The earlier order of stati1s¢_llc;11Q, Wl'1i.cl§t'xilIasvV:§passed by
court below is revived.vl30th pxart_i§3S--.;u:é'~--rlirect.ed to rr1ai._1i1ta1'n.

status quo §r,r..1'ltAllfl'll1*'t;;g.-_<,.2_a_:1'*'cit tisgﬁbsscssion as it stood as on 9.9.2009
when thlS=._ order on the undertaking of

resp0;;1ci'ent Xvlléifﬁjlilllii Says that respondent, who is de.fenr;la:r1t

'below has already put up Construction. to the laeeélightl is hereby eZ)1'Ei€I"€€l that he Shall net put up furtllm Qe:>1'1st.£*ticti0n on the disputed portion and sheulcl not ll"*.__llmnagaletevV_.;f0nstmction already taken up in that portion. He '€.l_'1.';c1l.1. lélzzintairx status quo in the $211116 gosition till d.isp0se1l of Griginal Suit in {)S.3.\l0.26268/2009 pe:1din.g an the file of XII: Aclcll, City Civil Judge; lvlaye Hall Unit, Bangalore. Rm 1

-3.

Q, E-I.€>W€:ver, whiia disposing iihiss zippeai, _'§h.is».Cc>¥;;r't' V. direct the Court below to dispose 0f the 0rigi.na1 ;31,iiii;..wi¥ifi_1iri zrgief year fmm the date of deferldant ['iEing1 w?ritié'r:.V Siaféﬂléllt suit.

Nd/»

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court