Karnataka High Court
Chikkabbaiah Alias Chinnappa vs Namdev on 15 September, 2010
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
_g.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15"' DAY OF" SEPTEMBER, 2010 BEFORE THE HOAVBLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MAL.1'§§e4A.mT..A' -- 4 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO....1.393/2%0'Q4T.:fma)f, BETWEEN: ' " " A 1.
Chikkabbaiah afias Chinnappa S/0 Eate Munivenkatappa, Major.
Since dead by LRsV 1(a) 1(b) j 'Aged about" 26 years, ES,/V0 late Chikkabbaiah 0 ~.@}_Chinnappa.
Apbeitants 1(a) to 103:») are ';_Res-iding at No.62, " Ramagor1danaIr:ali&, Whitefield Post,
-»v.-Bangalore ~ 560 066.
A AC-.vS'hvas?iVik«é1a ' Ageckafiout 24 years, Smt.Jayan1§.;jna .Ag'e'u- about years, W/0 §atev~'Ch_ik'i<.ab.baéa_h. j Ch_in'r':a£3;3a"A..V C.Versk%ates'h-._ 0 amended as per order dated @VA'Chm.§jappa. 3.04.2008. {7}/C-Ea'te Chikkabbaiah '\___._,_.._.._.w....m.__._..,,_.,. W%\\/
2. Dabalappa aiias Muniyappa S/0 late Munivenkatappa, Major.
3. Chikkamuniyappa S/o iate Munivenkatappa, Major.
AH are residing at Ramagzmdanahaili Viliage, ' Bangaiore South Taiuk, Bangaiore.
4. Ramakrishnappa » S/o late Munivenkataopa, Major, V ' Residing at E\io.141}= _ g 'D' Main Road, 8"' Block, "
Koramangala, 1 " 1 .V Bangalore; f}..APPELLANTS (By Sré B.FE;AfjanffianaE33553'fi'a..,,":A€i§r:ocate) AND::';,_
1. Shri AN-a mdVe\'/' A V Fa_ther's~na:~ne',--.not_ kfiown _'_fo the P£ai'ntiffs, V ._ .....
LA Re_s:d.ingA'*aVt oad No.73, " _ "N.ew._l\io;'7?9;-Dhookanahaifi, ._HA'i';f?_'7.'_' Sfiage, indéranagar, 'A aanVga'ac}g~e M 560 038.
2. S§1;f'iA'1mingappa * Sr: 'Kathi Jogappa 'Major, " 'Residing at Domiur, Civi! Station, Bangaiore -~ 560 071.
3. Shri Muniyaopa S/0 Munivenkatappa Major, Residing at No.23, Dookanahaiii, HAL 2"'? Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore - 560 638. ...Rgsrm:%r;r;is (By R1 & R2~ Notice dispensed R3~Ser\/ed) A ' xeee This ram is fiied under Seotiiron 96"'of'ce':: aigaiiinst the V' Judgment: and decree dat_ed"~._3.;'S_,_1O.20O4V_ passed in OS.|'\io.8507/2000, on't~h_e fiie oft--t4he"XVII Addll City Civil Iiudge, Bangalore City "(CCH.Ne§,1;5)""dvisrrii-.ssing the suit for permanent and mandatory inj',unc:tio--n_,"Cg. This RE~A"'eoVrnini;=1_ on day, the Court deiivered t.he'-r.foii'oiA{'_in*g;f__A - "
.... 3;, e"-wi.ie*'N T ;1\Aé;1gr'ie\/e'di»._é'i>ii\,'('- :_t'i:i.e:"j"udgment and decree dated
15.i;;(}._.2_(.}O4-'r paseed "XVII Additional City Civil Iiiidge, e;i'rigiai~.5r--ef"'e;ry in%o7.'s.No.85o7/zooe dismissing the suit, Voiairjiit.ivff fiied the present appeai. #2"; The parties would be referred to as per their A' in the trial Court.
The case of the plaintiffs is that, the iand bearing Survey No.2/1, measuring 1 acre 10 guntas situated at fr'-{-"""""
tats Dhookanahaili Viiiage, Bangaiore North "i"aiui<, as described in the schedule to the piaint, originaiiy beiongedy to Smtfionriamma, the grand mother of the defendant No.3. She bequeathed property in favour of the piaintlitfsiiat'-id under a registered wiil dated O9.O42iA1"955. SbLe':CiiedV than 30 years prior to fiiing"VGtV:.h"'t»ne Siivftad the plaintiffs and the defe:n'tiy_ant_sh'i:i_eeai_n.e"-jointioyiéyniers of the suit scheduie ppropertyua-nod'mey _.g~,'_;i~vVv¢,."//.i3._'%_'possession and enjoyment That?'-fa.Lpoirtion of the iand measuringii owes aequired by the CITB, (presentiy iiievelopment Authority) vide notificatiitm! dated However, without any justijfitaetion, f§i'~.'3'VV(:jvE3f€l':!Cf8F}tS 1 and 2 who were strangers to suV.iAt:isCh'e._duie property attempted to put up an iliegai Co'§"istrii"ei:'i~on'iloini the said property by ciispossessing the pia'i'ntii'iFs. '*'i3ience the present suit was fiied seeking for a V. rde{;'ree"'of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to Vde'm:oiish the unauthorised construction attempted to be it '' "put tip.
On service of notice, the defendants remained absent and were piaced as exparte. '. The trial Court on considering the p|aint.'.avem'ienvt4s dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs soleiy that the plaintiffs had not ied airiymewdeinceviii:"Vi%encei'.»the present appeai.
3. Heard the Eearne_d"--.,Couns~ei app'evar~»iirivg...fo-r the"
appeliaiit. Notice to respondVe'n,ts'ii__1 a.nd«.'2_ have been dispensed with. Resp'oViident served and unrep;j_eserited"}'~."=-_u:V*_" _ ._ 4;' "fi"he._A'iéarne.d'"="Counsel appearing for the app;-Ei.antsRi:oVnten'ds."-that the impugned judgment and de'crVeé--."i'~is"i'hiad inflmliaiw and liable to be set aside. He Vcr.:nVten.ds_ii.vthVaatno adequate opportunity was given to them to'---lead.-t~he4j'.ei/idence in support of their case. Faiiure to do so hzasfled to miscarriage of justice. He relies on the jade-'rnent reported in ILR 2001 KAR 546 in the case pf .. _SMT.A1"SHA 81' AND ANOHTER vs. M.SHAMSI-IER /3?
i*'€'fi*~='WW _g3t KHAN to contend that the Court should have applied its mind and thereafter passed appropriate orders. _ .
5. While considering the case of the pEai:'iti'ffs:;,-.T.ti'i..e trial Court came to the conclusion that it is ij:ecessarijl fo"_r the piaintiffs to establish their eir-.c'l'us-ivee pos_sesVsion as to seek the reiief of permanent'.Vin'j.unction._.agai.nst"~the._ defendants by ieading evider'i.i;f'e':._p» Failure't-Qjd:oV°sVo"'i*ia's ted"? to dismissal ofthe suit----._ ' --.
6. The learned (-_ZoLgV.nse'i.V__i,_a"ppearing for the appeliants'suVb"n:'it_s"thaitifftvhey5may be given an adequate opportun'i'--tylito t»hVei..r44evidence in order to establish theiif' 'Case. H'e.._fui-ther contends that due to the lapse on the plaintiffs in not ieading evidence, the has been passed. He further submits that in'view':ofvt'he precious time lost by this Court, reasonable ' icosts rriay be imposed. In view of the financial situation of 7th"e"p|aintiffs, he is willing to pay 3. costs of Rs.2.5,0DG/~. it 4""
03"
fresh adjudication. Hence, I 'am of the considered view that the judgment and decree requires to he set _ae-.i_dei_ia_nd the piairitiffs be given an adequate their evidence.
8. order:--
M. For the aforesai'd__r*easons; I (DES: tivtev«-ifoV[idwing--.f The appeal"'is"Ta.EioyiieCi;. Thg~*.ji;dgme'ri't ijenti .._detree:."¢itiates: 15.10.2o04 _i~»,/; .,6idjd.itio:nai City Civii Judge, .i_n: "Q:iS.No.8507/2008 is set TheV"matter:"'srtahds remitted to the triai Court forfresh disposal in accordance with iaw. ._"'iT.he trial Court shaii issue fresh notices to the dei'endants.
' '2 'In View of the suit: being fiied in the year 2o02, the triai Court shail hear and dispose off the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. I terse E mgg
vi) The appeflants are directed to pay a costs of.
Rs.25g{)O{)/- with the registry of this within a period of few' weeks from to<:iay_._.--3:H Prs*