Karnataka High Court
Ningo Pavan Raut vs Narayan Gundu Nakadi on 18 August, 2011
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B. Sreesiv Ase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the Before THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. SREESIV ASE GOWDA Regular Second Appeal No. "S084 /20 bs anil Sri Ningao Pavan Raut ~ . Age: 49 vars. Occ: Agricultur e. R/o Morab village. Tal: Khanapur, Dist: Belgaum. $9000". ve re LG Appellant (By Smt. SoM. Asunti for 7 Sri Srinand.A-Pac nl lapure Advoca Sri Naravan Guradte .. Respondent second appeal is filed under Section judgmen ' an na d ecree dated Khanapur, dismissing for mandatory and perpetual injunction. won sea EDS Pel Mie OV for Orders th U Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
is second appeal concurrent juden Cis a3 _ sake of convenience parties are referred in the suit before the 6 trial ancestral property enjoved by his father and grand father and it is in the ownership of the plaintiffts.f hundred vears. Out of the-S¢ property, stut property iS am open space ©.with, construction plinth around measurimg approximately. an old house standing in property and two to three e said, house wa vears back and. now it iscan-oper. space and it is used by Gram Panchayat; Bailur. The defendant is having his wstern side of the property of the property toware ~ plaintike. aad he "is also having old house towards "terthern, side of his prope The leneth of the plots of is nowhere concerned with the property of 1 erttered into 14 ox shown in the rough hand sketch in order toot "of defendant and asked him to..stop the "work. and defendant continued to dig into: the Suit. without listening to the plait cil Herice he he brodigh { perms anent and uméindators ier entering appearance in ntending that the descrit "and medsurement of the suit he plaratff is not the owner of property. is Wrong, two to three vears back. The rendant is having his old eridants Na ~~ Nae! Nowd a a A f e vd rn mand pod = "
oe rt a oN Sorel
-
on ve es ¥ Not iw a pono! ponte srt tis false that defendant suddenly and forcibly started to .put. tip the rough material facts of the case, belongs to possession and vahivat of thevdefs and his elders are in possession and: eTj}O vment of the area shown as-
more that 150% permitt up construction of a new house of eld-house and he has completed the said permission and residing of the detendant allowec Smt. record as property No.+7 without the knowledge of the defendant and plamtiff has no unconcerned to the measuring 14+ X& 25 which oets..in = his = ssiibalic:. possession. present stit Just. to. make a wronglul gain and=to. harass 'the. defendant. Hence, he praws for dismissal OFthe suit.
2. On the basis of pieadings.of the parties. the od, the [ollowirig issties:
msm tney
-. proves that the »dlegally constructed in as Shown in the
32.Whether the plaintiff re] Of mandatory PLUPURCUON and a witness as PW.2. aitd "ly produced 15 documents which are marked as-Exs: Ph. to.
PIS. Whereas. defendant has examined himsélfand. the. Bailur as PWiho and 2. e of the Gram Panchavat and has produced 05 documents whic are consideration of oral and documéntary. evidence on record dismissed the suit ofthe plair bx the said judgment 'Court "challenged the same in lower Appellate Court. The lower ApnéeHate Court upon re-appreciation of entire &. § It is against lKapments and ¢ slaiatiifh kc en yoke. Fat TI tre Ulin) aS Come up in time 9, Although in the Ex.Pl -- the property assessment extract. Exs.Pl4+ and 15 Record of "Rights name of plaintiff is mentioned as owner in"
suit property bearing No.47 (27) from, 1 99] | Lip. OS but they do not disclose . any : bouindanies: and. measurement of the property, which 'has been' ser jously disputed by the plainulf. Consequently, suit-as brought by the plaintiff tor ba re pexrhan ent sand =mandatory injunction do--net fungies ee trial Court after the matter has rightly Pentire oral and documentary moticing the aforesaid exhibits evidence oP thoushearc.standime in the name of plaintiff but they do "ot, disclose-the measurement and boundaries of the 'and decree find any valid reason to interfere with the same. That apart there is no substantial question of law: which arises for my consideration in the second appeal. : = | Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as "devoid : of merits.
Consequently, LA. No.1/201 1 filed for éondoning | delay does not survive for consideration. 'Accordingly, it is rejected. .
-- gal-
JUDGE