Yamanappa vs Irappa S/O Hanamant Huchabal on 10 March, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Yamanappa vs Irappa S/O Hanamant Huchabal on 10 March, 2008

Author: N.Kumar

Bench: N.Kumar

anus

II 'l.'Ill nun count or IiI.Il'l'Al'.l M' mason
mm mm was 1am ms: or unmu zoo; 

IIIOII

BETWEEN:

vnmwnnn 
sm mwnnnrrn. Hosasamz, 
2.5313 52 YEARS.    
occ mrucum-unn,

ago 51132951, A

anvm-azma man...'

QT MEET

HI-5 prawn '_

1:13? 31J.F:P'i3Il_.V5D~5--}G29.gV-..,:_D'  TD;  ... APPELLANT

my 331.. 3"." vs;  _  . s . SHIVALEE LA, Adv:-)

mu:  '

sic; I-£iHJﬂNdﬂﬁ'!'_HUCE!AaAL
Azéliniqs  ..... 

 pct: 'z.=j.13tm'. nus1uss.a,

 A ..n"io 9: Emu; :
 .T'ﬂ.'U'x'R'FI'TIIV1i. h'!lI'."~.l

VII. I» us-',-a..u.\jIr1. 'his, run III up

"s:m'nc;1'  j
a:taa1=m~:. 3135'-me-r 525 192.  assaeeanzrzw
ca? 2m.r.:':-iisii ir'.i-ire-iw*t.'u'v., "ﬁr:

THIS HPEEJLL IS FILED UIS 100 OF CPC AGAINST

 JU'DGHENT END DEGREE DHTED 10.2.2005 PASSED IN
" RJl.NO.31'h'20CI4 ON THE FIB! 0!' THE PRESIDING

OFFICER, FEST TRACK I I , BI JPLPUR DI EH1 BEING THE
.3.PP1!.1l.!: .l\.!|!ﬂ I;3C.l!!!'1 3.1!'! !i_|I1-  JUDGHBNT ' AND DEGREE
DATED 30 . 10. 193 B PASSED IN 03. N0. 4 5/199? ON THE

F153 91? %- P£DITI'J!*3.'.!.a CI'!IIa 5995! £J!l.=D!!!

5: mm: . 



-3'

THIS PAPPEMJ COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THI3
BAY, THE COURT DELIVERED '1'!-IE !'OLl..OI'INl3= 

This in the detendgntft " 
against the concurrent 
Courts below that the V.';.*:'_.'i.'.=_\.;v|.n1::iV.'".'E.Jv_!' " ie   
the suit schedule  he i§~  P'k7:§33.3B1Uﬂ
and thecetore,   no  tight to
inter:-no with the  3'~-tﬁeﬁzgtession.

2;  "thee.  'Lv:a.:';_5t_=~e1:I_-3  ggnvgniance, the

in tiie exiyihuij  ., 4 1' 

  .__'Phe 'aL:i.1:« schedule P-Dopuf-Y is an open

' Lqteite 'I'HC.No.'3'4|3fA eituated -in Irnrd No.3

H   The open space measures net: to

vex ,j::a-}.(;" V£ee, north to south so root: with the

 ' Mandel:-iee mentioned in the suit schedule. A

1"'..VV1ée'Ligh hand sketch 1:: also depicted to indicate

the exact: location at the property. The can at

the plaintiff is that his grand rather has

.-'.-urcraased the suit et:--'t;ec_l._;e pgopegty in the year

u/ 



Iaﬂ

1963 under a registered sale deed from cheur
Iamily. After his death, the plaintiff 
ifngigr mgmhexe have inherited the sated"'nnd'..'.§:t'3:ey _
§a'.3.a::'.n'n:'.L.f£ being; the Rartha; _E.:ne«_ 
got his name entered .in the .reed£d$ 'afjithe»L
municipality. He is  the *t_i_nxee.= 
Th-I defendant whey' hie ;ne'A.'Veint'&xjeetﬁ«'er Ht-:i.ght is
trying to dhetructt' hand" the right:
of the pieiﬁut 'ediiequeet to the
defendant"  ea;  "the pleintilr wee
canetrnine'd:V"'th;;:A_ fer declaration of

tit.-Id and  permanent injunctian.

 4.. _1i::te__j_;f"V"senfvice er summene, the defendant

   'aanpeere.-.ne:-e and giied deteiied written

p'.~':,_aintiff.~' ever the suit ﬁelliﬁi-3.1.5' :53.-near-.., as well

 A hie" mi-seeeeien ever the -name and hi éantindid

  the plaintiff has illegally got entered his

name in the municipality. He denied the

measurement of the prdperty. He denied that his
grand father has purchased the property in the

yen: 1963 and the eaid document is 8 concocted
51/



-'K

documant. It 13 hi: specific case that the suit
schodulo proparty originally balongad tgV'T».(§i29ur

iag;-.1 tr ;.e._. ghancixamappa va11app;ai"*« .fj:1§d:;1ég.

north to south 66 flat: §::§:"*aasf ":u_:$_ .l;:"O'Gi2. 
since the said grqpartjf'   "nq1: &i'viaa;d among
than persons,  a suit in
o. No. 73213.5-ii' an    'V  ilunsirr caurt,
sindgi  'ﬁ15&1¢ﬁ*§i:n§_  1.33" ahare and
the   Thu: chandramappa
got :"1:'3"  an x 20 not towards the
north§£'n:_'_'sL;ii"*  =41'7:.:}"l".Q.-VV l;!.idd.'l.i pa:-tian measuring 40

 x.1'.'¢.Iet.:"2I_.I_V:V:':nins§¢ to 1.-.l-us 511;;-a or Bnsappa and

ci2anti_::-z:a1§;pA;:a, ﬁauappa infi "f'11irg;':i chaisr in: the

 AA totélfaattant at land purchased measures iﬁxiﬁ

 on 15.2.1996 far a sum or Rs.20,000!-. I-to

__?i:I in possession and enjoyment of the said two

pieces at land and thoroiorn, the plaintirr has

no title aver the suit schedule praparty.
"LX

h /'



5. on the etoreseie pleadings, the Trial
gaunt rremed six issues. The. 9leintei1.'£.:_:'sIgee

examined as "'31- He enegned 1_:gn_;""i;ei»tn-e§.gsns«%

Es.2 ana 3 an": Eats.

'13

ehi:

u.

ﬁx
I
til'
3
m
ah
it
a
9L
m
w
#1!'
V
 .

ch 2:! Ql.

Q! S C' 1 I I' It M Ell E in 5% as IWJ. He also ene;nine:i"'i;nf¢2.. wienéusses iv and 3 and produced sixiniégie.-umevnta-_V_ Delhi' The Trial court mg ...;hppneéietji'en.._'a£ ﬁihhe 'ere:-eeeid oral and documentesy_"V that the plaintiff inane; *_- of the suit:

schedule; nether in the your 1963,--andA'VA"'t;h'eE*§t.:he in-:::..pciseeeeinn at the said gregerty; 'hes Ieiled to establish his pufchnse ﬁhnnsremppe, I!-aeeg:-pa, Yelleppe 1§,ega,¢n«.=g;- gieintiiz has 94;-eved the gig af ghg nlninhiff 'J II' E! ff H S:

1'! :1' pa.

{S 23 I if (1.

1| (3 I'! GI II ll.

I1' :5' {I ll Iv "Vi C r iiiii trill- as i:I".tT'i"';"f:' ﬁr. Prﬁzia-we bar the said judgment anti am»; of the Trial scum': the defi fxiﬁf AA prefenred :1 Regular Appeal. The lower appellate 'vce:n?rt on re-appreciation or the evidence on frecoru end after formulating the points to:

consideration has agreed with the judgment end decree at the Trial court and accordingly, had dismissed the appeal. In the appeal the IL/ A t;i.1':ieV__ kind as wall the dnfundiht defendant also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 2'? arc tar production at addV;lV.$':;L tz;§a1 avidoncu. The decuuumta sought to are ce.-2:4 Fied. aegis; 9.! thg g;g:L,1§tL~ aeatamant, the 5*.-idance 2:... P.'f..=:.1. ta 3 *'!w.

*"'ﬁi:":r:a *" 'ﬁ'u'r's.1 ta 3, E' "

judgmom: and cinema in dr§;'Ha.?:§ii§ﬁ'ﬁ.:".= nppa1J.ata Gaunt d1sm;j.sa&ﬂW gppliéiatian on the ground, even gocumnts are looked in _t¢:;,: is that the vendor o,v:"""i$/3" sham in the propqrty,":"'..§h§;ah.._ matter at that suit} dispute and tharaton, the said 'A V .n-at uuko any material §,i;::§ggnc§ dﬁciding the issue autumn the the proceedings in Oa..No.73/1986 hold the iiproporty claimd by the plaintiff is situated towards the north or the prupurty claimed by the defendant, both the proportion are totally ditiarant. It aims took nuts or the ovidonca «:1 m/

-1.

DHL2. who categorically has stated that 'since 1963 plaintirt, his Iathnr and his grand.,V'£Eath¢r are in possession at the garage ty n:.m_aa;:;i:2'g;~_ is claiming. The a1ridin§&. on 'ra_ce.I§:i tho' pJ.nint:L1'.'1."'s peas-aasaion nah; aLiii:'*"v4achadu1a property. Thara£nrn_;' the judgment:

and doc:-ea__ dismissed. the appeal. gnnturrant findings, the dﬁ£ﬁnﬂa:ﬁt:>':':»L§._ aaAe'oné1...ﬂE§3Pta1.

'--aié'n;:-na'&._n4tounsol tor the appellant:

aa;;ail1ng.Vtha_V"ﬁudv§;mant and decree of Trial court I'! I3 '3 1'1' 1! .51 II'.

M K 5 IE II 1*! 1:1' '3 II In E'-

I-

II II P IN :."

In Ir-l it .3 II}.

II Ii'! intdrfﬁro with thl a'u':InIiani:'s proparty w ich hi purchased under 31.131 and -tharororo, submits 'tithe decree our permanent injunction which is acutely and aqgroaaiwly against the dofondant requires interim:-once in this appanl. I do not find any substance in this contantian. V

7. Thu material on record shown under Ex.P"J. the gnlai-nt:Lf.f's grand rather purchaad schedule property, which moasuz-as purchased the proparty uﬁﬁér ix.ﬁi_§ :§qn'{gihrisonVV of bcunduias at ..th¢ :'|Ii'm::i.4anad in than two sale daua'o':5.l's'%'_T_r:J;ii-e=l..;§':;fl§'3r that the northern hgurifiary dotondant is a Gwrgsanaiﬁg *1,®§G':,j_Vsfh~a_;~e.;§T.'_v can or the p1ainti.££""~.,{sia "'nﬁ.1,9f§ging to Lakshmannppa Malliappa' far sauthox-n boundary is cconca:.§ixa@_i',%% at the dafandantm pgcggbrtv J.:i.'a: " Basappa"a property, whereas in the élaini:-i_.1"s 59;; 49!: to :11; !_!t_n_:l:.h, it is 3}:-.3'.-.*r: V as cg:-an site belmzgiag ta ..!':m:r Iamly.

a.IIna}.,_ * Eat}: the parting an claiming i::.1':.1 from persona balancing to Chou: family. The %p1aint:U!::'s grand rather has purchased in the yaa: 'I363. The suit is £111»: in the you: 1991.. thirty years axtor the execution of the sale and. IlI'.2"l nvidonca shows that the pJ.a:i.nt:L.1'.'.1.' and his family members are in poaaaaaian or the groparty. which in the subject. matter au,:Lt,.Irom 1963. Undar than circuma€:i'n§:§a_; _._as.% under E'a:.'I?1 and the 5':rc:rp_4ari:V14.i.--A é.t..1':"::';iVr.:é§.i:.,.'iafa'ﬁi";a;r""9.:

I:x..n1 claimed by the ddfandann era' lying adjacent ta'yacht"'bir§jLnn;r._ as é tm'r' jproparty purchased by both fnnB--._.do£andant are clearly tia_1jI«11a§:;:c:at.audV;:'AVV'Ia-f'_ﬂbaar1§iar;iras:.x as wall as the maaauramgssnii' _ pr-nnarty is purchased by t_Iw.., the datandant has {no --. -'aver tha said property. mm'm~§.- caurta ha).-aw have dacraad ting' "a-':.1.:Lt .Vfor_V"aaci.aration and granted injunrtion Land "tanner Iix.'Pi, if plaintiff tries to intarfara tho defendant': property, it is always open 'Etc the darandant to approach tho Court: and neck appropriate raliai'. on a more apprehension, tho defence of than defendant cannot be upheld. 'L X ''12 sin:

8. No substantial quastion or law do_griso ggngidagntian in the second app¢a;? Qh¢ch _ezit edaiseieng gages, tn; aegea; ;g_§;Qﬁig§é§§"

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court