Sri Boraiah vs Smt Radha Bai on 3 March, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Boraiah vs Smt Radha Bai on 3 March, 2009

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

-3- IN THE HIGH COGRT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGEKLOREZ DATED T'HiS THE 339 DAY OF MARCH 2069 BEFORE THE HONBLE fv¥R.JUS}'EC-E SUBHASH 8.;-xi):

REVIEW PETITION NO.364f~20G'7' k A' IN REGULAR FIRST APpEAL:;AN0,§?ﬁ§¢j;ggg BETWEEN:

S1'i.B0ra:iah Aged about 60 years S/'0 Payaiah , Resident of Laggare Village...

Now known as Rajagoyal Nagar. _ V P€e:1}.raIIStag¢3: _ j Bangalore. H 1}?' _ _ 4_ .'."'P?)TIT§«C}NER {By Sri. 'far Sri. M. V. Oh331dra;s*hekéx;7ja . Rescidy, At§'v2}.. V " AND;

Smtﬁadha . 'V _ VV/o.M.{}A,M"1;1rfh§;; Deaciiay E-(Rs: "M,R;'M:ar5!hy Rae. Maggi"

A     5»-3

 M  Majcr
 Téaao, Major
 R30, Major

'}§{a1*asi21";1§3':.PAurthy, Major Eéﬁshﬁa Major i'v'£ ;:Sha;1tE1akuma1:i, Major .VS:r1fi¥:.Uma Rat), Major 9u,' .Smt.Jayaia.ksh1n1' Bai " All are residents sf N032, 531 Main Road Padmanabha Nagar, Bangaiere-76.

from immfering with the peacefui }.'}0SSfiSSi.{)Il anti enjoyment if the suit scheduk: property. Suit schedule property is va'T§j£3:;se site bearing §\Io.1C¥56 measuring 40 ft X 30 ft situa£ed5~Aa§;' Village new knowu as Rajagogalauagar, Banga1§fe.,. _ claimed that, by virtue of a MHE'bﬁ"*;:1'av éistributecl by the Government. 5116: héjs 15-s:'f_C!:3n16 'c}*;<;*1:;Va£;:1" "i31 '~ eccxxpatien of the-, said site aV11{i«vQf,+V&r S has constructsd a residentiaiv :~'h.§'3usc:;""' of declaration, piahzﬁﬁ had for the period fmm I973~?4lto..'diﬁgyvvdcgériﬁmenis, and also allegeé that, doctlmemts, based on the ;,:A_1:;:>_' the possmsiora 0f suit preiaerty by 'sixow that the aileged gram: cf Hakka PatI'&;l'"I§3 ééiﬁogus, there was an t3I".Ei11}.iI'}=' mgardizgg' ﬁgs: fabﬁcaiéd Hakka Paﬁa, and persons who were g;ag:ta;:;"wi:3h'L'*iaak;n; Paira, were éirecteﬁ to szlrrezlder to the a11ﬁ:'1oIé5t3: ibf:"v;§$:i£:i§;;1ﬁon. plaintiﬁ" acce-rdingly, sulrerzdemd the t{5"«.ECh€V.'_'ai.iTf£"{fiAI'it}', however, defendant diti not surrenéer as bagus, anti ix} turn, task the advantage: of the tried :0 iﬁtczrferﬁ with ihﬁ posasession cf scheéuie by the plairaﬁﬁi

4. Defendant had claimed that ha is an aiiattee of site as J per the aliatnmeni: dated 2831 Azmust 19'?8 anﬁ since them he ,3-

6. This Court tioubted the Carrectness of the documﬁnts };}1"OdliC€d by the defendant mainly on the: greund explanation eﬁered by '£3116: defendant that his K genuine aﬁoment, the Authority did not sxirrenéering said document, which 1¥QuI1C1:i'iSi«{;O:I1i1;a1'#'?"' to Ex.P5. N0 doubt, an applicatiqn byi.§§i,é:":3efeiii§ia::iit'., under Order XLI Hulk: 2'? of (3I:'v{§*v,ﬁ(3ifM»prO.fi1i1CtiiO1;1iV'4jf:'Vé(iiﬁit:§i)11a.i 'V V documents to Show the pI'§3,p§IT§' Qxﬁﬁﬁit. period of 19178. Hewever, the vciisbelieved by this Court {in the g1'o:1;r"1ci::t:':3.,at, for in 1986 aiad nothing ha$ Considering tilﬁ evidence 33:16 am} evidence of the parties, impugned in the Review Petition conﬁrméﬂ zéxxci decree of thﬁ trial court by file am3'c<aL,VV V' I the disposal ef the appeal, it appeais, the investigation from 'tbs Gfﬁce 0f thﬁ V iV"i'_ahsiidI$I, 1%,".~';Si::%'i/;"a;1t Commissioner and 'Taluk Panchayat to ﬁné H H " 4.éa{f £;i:1t;=si_c::e1'i'*»::s:::mess of Exs.P1, PS and P5. The Tahik Panchayai béﬁg mag dated sew July 209? bearing No.RHf§:€3R:1?{};G7~08 :iIi'f{.»'I'-Iilﬁii that the pvossess-i011 certiﬁaatﬁ is issued to the Ki ". i"';3'étiti€)I3£€§' i.e:., defendant on 2031 August 1978 by virtue of Govamment Gréer dated 13111 May 19?? shawing that site b€:ari11g N-3,1056 is ailotted in favour of defritxléaixt. It is 3130 placed on record that, sites bearing NG$.1(}3Q ti) 105 § i{.%T$:I'€ reserved and not ailotted in 19733 and only 011 bearing N-:3s.1{352 to 1065 were allottiid, and I'f':Sf3I"V€d, and on 14.5.1980 sites lvO"'?_9 1 iVVI?;_Véi?éV;1:V'V« ailettcd and it is contended that no Sy.Nc3s.119 and 12.0 was allotted iI}.:£€:iV(}11I'v. of V or her children,

8. In View of the and the documents produgedthjg for review of the judgment. in i.A.i/200'? was filmed for " '}addiYi011E3} dmuments.

Bafendantwvixas fgdtdmsseé by the defendant to Daputy C0m1I£i3§io:1ef £:";icréz?1iéé'see1{i11g the cietails perta1'11i1:}g to 1356 in Sy.Nos.l 19 and 120 and in . I.'i?§:['I.)f};V}.V'3S'f;V3V letter, this Deputy Commissioner by his n V 2037 informed. the '£'ahsiidar '£0 Ifllakﬁ 3 Vvvgﬁﬁcaigiagl ciaim made by the defendant and ﬁnd out as H Pgfhsrihﬁr f§h%r€ has been 3}] ailetmcnt of site N€::.1056 in favour ::'i5'«;::eas€d plaintiﬁ". Tha list of aﬁomzant of house Site": ':6 i::;ouséless_ landless and agzicultural labourers, Peenya Group n Panchayat, Bangalore North Taiuk is alss praﬁuceé. From the said list, if is pointed Gut that, site N0s.1C¥3Q to 1066 were ﬁx?"

r;??% '/5 :_*'é3:":rQr é';;a;:}jﬁ2a_r:;11».Mcsn tiié' reserved for group panchayat 'sarvajanika ﬁurpomz'. Anothrsir decmnent relating to Yeiahanka Efoiali, Laggﬁrc: Villagé in zcgésptzci of sites formed in Sy:N0s.1 19 am} 1'20 is }3I"()(iI1C€:d V. site bearing No.1G56 allotted to the defenciant. hiaci made an application on 9.10.208?' >?ALE}"1"h«i':" if}xe{;iii§:*¢2*:_ (Bf Taiuk Panchayai: interczﬁa seeking . t;hr€:€:" ._ auotteci in Sy.Nos.119 and 120.._, pa;~sicﬁiar1y.,VAfefe£$"""ts 'Visits " ' N0:-3.1050 1:0 1062? An exfmgt of 3:316": ¥€§§'Eﬁ1I€: rﬁgiﬁmx pétrtaming to site bearing N33. 1054 to :0 Show that, site No. 1056 stands phe it is shown in the eawner / ﬁﬁfﬁcnt of revenue at RS5/-.

9. Ieaxned Semis? Counsei Ifspresentizag révi.§:§§% pkaﬁﬁéiler submitted that, there is an fact: of the Iecerds has crept in in thﬁi j.i16i gi3:%£:TI1"£"_ ivstﬁﬁmiﬁsd that, the documents new prcsciuced knowledge of the éefenciant when the 3}}}}€3} Wag and these decumrmts t;om:}:1 the mat of the iﬁvglvéé in the suit. He further suiamitted that, them was K of sites bearing N0.1056 prior to 19'?8 as no sites V ':*i§;1§*;t:§ja1Iotted as per the list of sites prepared by the Tahsﬂdar, E;-opy of which is issued by Executive Oﬁcgr, Taltzk Panclmyat 33:21 painted Gut that site bﬁariﬂg N0.1{)56 was EGE avaiiabie for purpose: gas an V"

N0.1(}:':31. W63': by road, North by Sim N0.Iﬁ:"S'? ané Smith by measuaring 40 X 30 feet, road A11 exttract sh0wi11g.__ tbs beneﬁciaxies of the aileianént 0f ﬂee: site 911 25.4.1987 plz«n'n1:iﬁ"s mama as against site No.10ES6 and Ramac.§::§_11d.fﬁ V' name as against site No. 105?.

11. However, in the revenue éeJ::i':>;3;1€I. IfgI'S>E.¥':1.?.7'.1I1.2fElI'L.E3.'f'§'c"i:::..}€}u§iC'i'._ by Rajagopalanagar (Leggert: _}V3ec1Aiya:__ £}r§$i1pVV'I?$:it1c}iiayat " V as against site N0.105{'3, name Of-*"§;1'#;..€.§k':'§éfr;1.I1{i&i:Iif"iS mfentionﬁci and sift: N0.1(}£S7 is c:onccrii:,;€1.,*-iii' the name sf one Parvathamma. hf: to the list of lauciiess and who have been allotted i"EO.1055 as against Boraiail s »(ir;t"«:c%12.;;1a1t1't. T113 origitiai recsards also show that, :§§;§gé to 1966 resezved fer pubiic S'}bZ1'iA;G.,S.*--Vi$We.sWa1a, learned Senim" Counsel refmrizzg to aiso the erigjnal records pointed am that, LZ'_,::e rev£i:<141:&2--..'<::{eI:3£hI1d rzagistm" anaﬁ the list of tbs allottses cizisarly 1:335: of the dafendant as an alloiitee of the géic. in he also submiﬁmi that, $it-:3 1'\2't).l{}§;éZ3 was 110': at 313 uéfdbéﬁﬁiét mattar sf aliotment in E§f?3, as it was reseived far jﬁibiic purpose aid was mieasad stgbsequerztly 1'3 1€P'?8, <7' x.

r.::.~:l§(&' ..14..

It is made Clear that the tﬁal court med mt be mﬂuenceﬁ by 311}; of tha observations made duﬁng the COUISE of this ord'%i'. it 3321131: décide £116 matter strictly" based ml the A' produced before it.

The ariginal docmmxzts am direc:te€'§.7 Government.

KNM/~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court