Karnataka High Court
B Koosappa vs P Veerappa @ Koosappa on 29 October, 2009
Equivalent citations: 2010 (1) AIR KANT HCR 695, 2010 A I H C 1620, AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 945 (KAR.), (2010) 3 CIVILCOURTC 237, (2010) 2 ICC 246, (2010) 2 CIVLJ 467
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
.. fiavalaziaide Hobli, .V Nanjangud?'57"1..;&3O 1 . IN THE HIGH comm': or KARNATAKA AT 1% R.S.A No.3201/2007 3 :2? :1 3" 9? \, DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY 01* OCTOBER 2009 L BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE "
R.S.A. No.3201/:'20C'd7..:' t BETWEEN I B.Koosappa.
S/o. Basappa, Aged about 418 years, Residing in Gattadvadi, Kavalande Hobli, V Nanjangud--5'71 [By Sri. M.s1va;$pé;--.se:ii_o.t ' . . ' . 'I P.Veerapp'a @ " h S / o. Parvathuippa. _ A Aged about 78~.y€21I'S, -_ Residing in Gattair§1di,"
(By Kumar, Adv.) . .. RESPONEENT it is filed ti/8.100 of CPC against the
-Judgerixent A&'De(:ree clt.12.9.12{)O7 passed in R.A.I\E'o.70/99 on «._the file of 7~the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn} 8: JMFC, Nanjangud. 'clisI1:issing"the appeal & confirming the Judgment & Decree ' d«i.'2.7.3I"]999 passed in O.S.No.1"71/97 on the file of the Add}. _ Civil Judge (Jr.Dn}, Nanjangud.
This R.S.A. coming on for admission, this day, the V "Court delivered the following:
R.S.A No.3201/2007
JUDGMEN1' This second appeal by the defendant is against the judgment and decree dated V' passed by the Court of the civil..allegef'{--s:{}3eV.){-,V Nanjangud, in the appeal in ». impugned judgment, the has confirmed the judgmen"t~.__ande*t'deeree:"o.f theftrial Court declaring the plaintiff plajnt 'A' schedule propert3e«l.al1d of the plaint 'B' schedule .
2. I have-hearde'S-ri'lM4.'SiVappa, learned Senior Counsel for the appellaiit the judgments of the two '.....(;ourtsl:.'1)velo\A{. VC'on(:_u_rrent findings by both the Courts. ''the» have held that the plaintiff is the owner of thelsuitl properties. It is relevant to refer to 4' 'para ..ofthe lower Appellate Courts judgment:
_ "'16. Exs.P-5 to 7 coupled with Index of lands Record of Rights produced at Exs.P--1 to P2, clearly go to Show that the pltliflilff is the absolute owner of 3 acre 8 guntas in R.S.A No.3201/2007 _ 3 _ Sy.No.205/ I which also includes 'B' schedule property. Therefore, it is clear that the plainhjfis the absolute owner of the plaint 'A' schedulefh. property which also includes 'B' schedule. trial court has rightly held that the plaintiff? A not in possession of 'B' scheclale propertyE"ancl therefore, the trial court has alternative relief claimed. by plain't.i{fA' for" V' delivering possession of psch.'"ed__ul'e it in favour of the plaintjf.....V_.__._.;A;;.._. ..... ., . v._,"'
3. Sri M.SiVappa, learnetlp appearing for the appellant 555$ the Limitation Act, 196$ coritende_(_lV':'thatVlthe .cl't,ii'm for possession of the plaint 'B' scheclule~. barred by limitation as the suit' was not ..iVnstit1:t'ted Within twelve years from the infidateiouf dispossession of the plaintiff. T his contention is this was the legal position earlier 4 under l}tiftielehVl42 of the Limitation Act, 1908. i..V"'-Atticie 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has '::'_4drastica1ly changed the earlier legal position. A plain E-
'" 5 J' R.S.A No.3201/2007 _ 5 -
6. In my opinion, no substantiai question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. No ground to admit the appeal. The appeal is accordingly .4 V. Appeal dismissed.
bnv/Ata