Gavisiddaiah S/O Ankappa vs Kenchaiah S/O Late Ningaiah on 29 July, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Gavisiddaiah S/O Ankappa vs Kenchaiah S/O Late Ningaiah on 29 July, 2008

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA}(A..A'fﬁ-. 

BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 29"' Diet 0F  2G{ag      L

BEFORE: 2__ '     X
THE HON'BLE MR. JusT1c1€jANANi:> _B"i'£§;A§i"{§i§}§Y
REGULAR sscczaszn 2502 OF goes

BETWEEN:

Gavisi:ddaiah,"?3 ycézrs .4  I
S/0 Ankapgva ~ "   
Rcsidingagl N0. 241%}. '- _

3*" Main, 4**'--4CrosVs  A' '
Padi§}a1'ahalIi " 

 i5?O01a2'-«       APPELLANT

 '      Advocate)

» ..  --   Kgncﬁaiﬁh
*  é  S/"o"'Léate Ningaiah
  '~Sit:c--::' deceased by his Legal Rcpnazstzntaiivtss

    Thayamma, 43 years

W/0 Kenchaiah

2. Nagaraja, 30 years
S/0 Kenchniah



3. Basavaraja, 28 years
Sic Kenchaiah 
4.. Mahcsha, 26 years
S/0 Kenchaiah

5. Surcsha, 24 years
S/0 Kenchaiah

6. Mangala, 20 years    
Dfo Iﬁenchaiali  '

Dfo  i     

Rcspdﬁiiea.li;,No§ﬁ}V 'ii  '

Residing atVD"oo'2*.»No. 241.. ' '

3*" M'nin,'4°' Ctjizssf '.  

Myscremsaro 01:2  '  RESPONDENTS

Senior Advocate fur Shir H. H. 'azii:i-. "Sh_ri. Ramesh. P. Kulkzami, Advocates for ' }J§as;."'l to 7) 1!$### Tiiis; Regular Second Appeal is Filed under Section ,100._of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against me '-j_udgci:'icnt and dm:-we dated 21.09.2005 passed in R. A. Nu. 23411999 on the ﬁle of the 11 Additional Civil Judge (Senior _MDi§visitm) and CJM, Mysore dismissing {he appeal and ' " conﬁrming the judgement and decree dated 28.09.99 passcd in " = V O. S. No. 2159/93 0:: the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) Mysore.

3 This Appeal coming on for ﬁnal hearing Court delivered the foI1ow:'ng:--

Heard the Cuunstsl for l.h::_4_:1pp<4.%iI:;;'1'it--and the respondents.

2. This Court whih; on 30.8.2006, has held that 3.1hs§..;ggubségantiz£!:'..'quc§éi§£.jn:sv saw raised in the appcal would a.ﬁS£{ibI 'IT"r1._t'§Vij1v:t:sti1):1s t:-flaw that are raised in l}1c. a«pupL*-a%I "I. The 3241; was' for declaration oftirle * _ a:vi¢§"':i:yf:;r1c£ion. A;)pe'E£zini's title is esrabtished by % ;;5i'*::4cfI1¢c{Ior:'«:>f" 53:91, P3 & P14. In this view, %§w::¢_me:~ .'iE:a=?_'c£§:¢'i5is below erred in dismissirtg the sic-:3? 3 A P}, the appellam' has admittedly Vpzarchased 55 fit x 8 ft. The axisteme of the ' femainirrg property had to be established by the h ' 'deﬁarrdam. Kit is not established a" decree ought to have been granted?

3. In the light of the Corn;1u'.s*s1'oner's report the courts beiow erred in dismissing the .s*u;'--{? V " ' "

4. Whether Ike ﬁnding that appéiliﬁii'¥::ia74.¢or:sr}fiii:*-rgdi " V his property in the entire lanii'pzi;%¢Hdsed'£1§ }uTm.is' arorrect?" _

3. Al the (wisest, ~l'aci:§LAar't:i.i1s'Ii1lluvr.is:-

The appellant 50 x 8 feet.

under a regi$lc*rif:<!._ lagagq i 193.1953 fmm the respongiléiil re:i'i:ii5iiilc:nl's father had purchased the 1.2.1937 which pertained nut only _l_.r_:,1l1e ivlziaili iéilitiiltl lo the appellant in 1953, but also .. 4. it the southcm side of the property sold was the appcllanfs prayer in the suit for a dec§laruti()i1,'V iihal an area measuring 50 x 5 feet, (which is iugvrzlcgiguiaiiiisly also stated as 50 x 8 feet) lying between the iciiiisliuclcd portion ofthc de{'cndanl's property and the prupcrly T " by the plaintiff, as belonging to the plaintiff and {hr at consequential injunction restraining the dcfcndani from $ interfering with the said portion of 50 245 feet. The...T_ having dismissed the suit and the tnfbeeﬁt .s allirmt-At by the list appellate court, Court.

4. At lirst bias}; is to""t;e"e_:eE5se1fyed tum: 3,6", is no dispute about the extent $51' been purchased by the appettarfavt; ho claim in respect of8 xssettrgesissiwo pgtgghased by the appetlant. The the pmperty of the defendant name;-iy, x be the subject matter of any dispute The a.ppettant's endeavour to contend that it A we-ta'1__l_d1 to detemaine as to the property to whieh the d .V vaeegnt namely 5 x 50 feet would form part of or accede dd t"u,*eisA atdisexereise which is not warranted. On the ﬁwe of it, it

- form part of the del'endant's property. The elaborate dd "exercise that the appellant has undertaken in the eourse of the suit by reeourse to the appointment of a Court Commissioner 8

616., was wholly unnecessary, as on the lime: cl' cuuld not have brought any poriion measuring 5 x 50 that this was an easement he could lay any claim in gllzrchasc of the silt: mcntiomd it is wholly unnecessary. inlla of law that have not warrant any merit and is :l£g:cu11lingl'lyV .. ' ' Sd/---

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court