Sri V Narayanaswamy vs Sri V Siddaraju on 31 October, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri V Narayanaswamy vs Sri V Siddaraju on 31 October, 2008

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT 0:: KARNATAKA AT BANG.~f§.'C§-R_¥3'L§.j:  A' 

DATED THIS THE 3181' DAY €)1?'»AA§)CT()_B~E§jC2:tA3;--(V:):8..A T V 

WEFORE

THE HOWBLE MR. J¥.i'$ICE N.._}XNAND2§~   "  '; 

M.F.A.NO.87g_§ oFjk2g_Q7    i

BE'1'wEEr¢;

I

SR1 vNARAY.ANAswAm'V..V V
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS - 
sfo VENE{A'i'£~3C}i1?IY}%PiT'A"" A . 
12 /AT MA§;EYAPP:'--§.N2lI§§AI;1.§ v1__:.:.;A::3g; '
KASABA HQBLE    V.  
MALUR =T.AL:s1§s:.,' _ V. ~
KQLA1-&'DIts'rR{C:*1'- 

 .   " ...APPELLAN'I'

(By Sn' : ivizV;sHTA'Q 1$4iiV:v:E*.r;.a3:;"éxvi SURESH, ADVOCATES3

AND  'I

  s:DnA:2;;;:~g: ~

:-\Gm3 _ABQUT 43 YEARS

* " '' 'Si0VE'NAKATAGIRiYAPPA

R 1'-AT.VMALI.YAPPANAHALLI VI LLAGE

1 *~KAs1a13A HOBL1, MALUR TALUK
 E«;Q.Lm§j'£;is*rR1c'r

SE§I FJENKATEGIRiYAPPA

I  AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE PAPAIAH

V' " VR/AT MALIYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE

KASABA HOBLE, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT

SMT RUKMINI

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

W] O RAMACHNADRAPPA
PRESENTLY QESIDING AT M0100
MARUTI-{I SEVA NAGAR POST



SUBBAIANAPALYA F'OS"F,NEW EXTENSION
SANGOLLI RAYANNA ROADBANGALORE

4 SR: v MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
s/0 VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
R/A'? MAIJYAFPANAHAIJJ VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI   
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT

5 SM'? SUJATHAMMA@SID»DAMMA'*--A 
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ' _  
D/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA "  .

RIAT MALIYAPFANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI V    -A  
MALUR TALUK, KOLAI? DIST   _

6 Sm' M V EBHAGYAMMA 

AGED ABOUT'  YEARS' » 

D/0vE.15IKM?AGIre:YA¥>1?AA.  ;
R/._earMA'LJYA'E:9A_NA HALL! VTLLAGE
KASABA i-IQBLE1.' _ *  .
MALUR TALLIK, AKQLAR £Z¥IS'3I'RIC3'I'
 . .    - RESPONDENTS

(By Sri: N hiUDi)UKR'E_SHNA'~F4OR R243 85 ms; Sri.Y;R:SADASHIVA'REDI)Y FOR 2-4:

V. '_ Sri_»t5~2.R.$RIﬁIVASA"MLIR'7§'HY FOR R-1 1 _ 1»:1éA«.m;E:~:> U,/ORDER 43 RULE 1(r} OF cpc, AGAINST OI§E).ER %1D_AfrE£> 2536/07 PASSED on E.A.NO.4 IN .. C'..SL'N_0.59/G7 ON' THE FILE 0? THE II ADDLCIVIL JUDGE (SRDN), KQLI'ﬁ'_?,T"ALLOWING I.A.NO.4 FILED U / ORDER 39 RULE I AND 2 C'.PC-.F'OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTEON.

appeal, Ccéming 011 for hearing, this day, the k delivered the following:

JUDGLENT I have heard learned counsel

2. The ieamed cot1_z41set'~.. defendant would submit restrained 6*" defendaﬁ't~ trees and mango trees Sy.Nos.161 85 17/ I in d9 guntas of V Tide ._ would submit, neither plaintiff that totherd had sought for such a reli<:;i.'.§d 'VTherefore,d trial court was not justjﬁed in defendant not to out and remove 1711- d H " learned counsel for piaintiﬁ' and other would submit that 6'11 defendant cannot be ".9-;1'11'do';1sz'ed to out and remove aforestated trees detrimental A to :iz1terest of plaintiff and other defendants. [) EM trees standing in Sy.Nos.161 as I TV" 1 /'\,~ ~ﬁ'V""

4. It is seen from the impugned order, neit11e}f"!11e Plaintiff nor other defendants had moved the ~ for an order of temporary injuneizion to defendant from cutting and aforestated Sy.Nos. Therefore, <:o@o'e,§r':9;'sn justified in issuing such a. V' V V. S

5. In the result, The The impugned order ort1er__0f court restraining 6"' defendazit, (IA No.IV) is deleted. Howej.fer,t.. to plaintiﬁ' and other Ttoglxove tr1a' 1 court to make appropriate A the ma' loourt for such a relief w'1th'm _ today. Till then, both the paxties . .. not to cut: and remove trees standing in land bemam in sy.Nos.162 & 17/1 of t I: 'Ix&e]1}rappanahaih Sd/.., Judge em]-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court