N D Nanjappa vs K R Ramakrishna on 20 November, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

N D Nanjappa vs K R Ramakrishna on 20 November, 2009

E RSA NCJ.9'3§2QO%

EN 'rag HEGH C{){§R'F es? i{ARI'EA'F!-&i{A AT BANGAL0;§.§:»T.

SATED mzs THE 207?! my OF raovgmgm: ;:<.»_:{f,~.c';_9 __'__%-  " 

BI§F'C')RE3

THE H<::>N'B;.,£=: MRJUSTICE ;g;é'.éACa'aAPUT§E_VV  _ 

REGULAR SECEONQ APPEAL v§£iQ. 99 0F2€:<:$4 " V
BEFHEEN

Ni}. Féanjappa,

3/0 Late NA. Devaiah,

zﬁgmi abeut 53 years, '- V V
Residing at Barthoui" Esta;t3;',"'~ -- 
Kodagarahaili PQsi:,V,   .»

    APPELLANTIS

(Sm. §4§.G. F{i1ma§_r,--  

vaséb 

V. ' 1 « .i;{:}"~3. E":éim._ﬁk:;§.shna,

V  
 §'§g&é".'?1§3'-.C'f11'i $5:-gzeartsg
.' }RE;'§:i{ii.I:g   Vﬁlage,
Stgaticeppéz Eéaii,
V Samitwéjpét Taiuk,
 KGd3§E_'L

    V3311,

 Agéd about 35 years,
581/0 Ramachalii,

" Residigg at Kcsdagarahaili Viﬁagé,
Suzlticoppa Nadg
Samwarpsi Taluk?
Eiodagu.



2 RSA N'{f}.9§§r'_;'2004

3. Iiaiista,

8/ 0 Macihavan,

Ageei about 63 years,

Resiciing at iiadagarahaiii Village,
Sunticoppa Nad, 
Somwarpet Taiuk, V

Kodagu.    ._

(Sri. TA. Kaxumbaiah, Adv.)

This RSA ft}:-zé u:1i:i¢i=~ .. Se<:tio:1 "'}{)€} 01' CFC against. the
juégemeni 55 decree cltd. SQL1-.Oi3_ :_%3a zssé:'c1: iﬁ "R.A.13iQ.52/99 on
the file of aha Civil Judge "(S_;r.D_n.}, -'Madilimrz, aliowing the
appeal and setiing' asidé" ju(1§g:?:_331€::1t_ 331:1 decree: did'
30.10399 passed_."i1i§.§§S N:O.?i5f97 OI1"%;E1ft...ﬁ3€3 of the Pri. Ciivii
Judge       .

ryhis. cf; '-§°y';51"Q'§1'"<.:;'§:,7!'?:E.;§1g, this day, the Cieurt,
deiiveredjihe f(')1ix35V§?iI'1agV;:~  ,  --

-    J'a§GrexE1i*r

The unsai:LCg::€:ssi;:1l  has approached this Cottrt in

ha-i:"313eaii,..;3ha;13L¢:1g§§:1g t'}.V1é"é£'is 11:xissa}' of his suit ﬂied in Q8 '?6:/ E997

  rgigﬁai of the respondemzsfdsfeildants by the

  zowér ,;§;l¢spe11a,i§g'i.;c§:;rt in RA 52;:999.

 .. ,  'I'ﬁ£: facts raisvani: for the purpose of ihis appﬁai are

" .*21s'11i:3;ui;'::":

A   TBS '}'ri.ai Court far the sake Qf(fO}3V6Ili€11C€, g

E I win he mferring ta tkm parties as par their rank before

,3'



3 R823; NO.§'5},1f3{}Q4

The appeiiant hemin is the plaintiﬁ' whereas. the
respondents are ths dafendaxats 1 tea 3 'be::£70rv:~: the

The plainaji' instituted a suit fer bare iujunctiqzg ~ averrsd by the piaixxtiﬁ that his fathgx: i;;at5.S1:i}" ii: K x possession cf the land bearing S11rve},';'1«1§§ol:.§iZ,é;3 .' acres with the botzndaﬁes n1e:ifi§§12.§:d ..t:,§ thé * L' plaint. After the aea:-.3; of ne*«T.%:.9:::§;nuea, in possession anti that he hvas. }E3ee:«3 Said iarzd 311$ is: £11 exclusive posse:s$i0n:.é1n:;1-- :t%i":1jVC}:yE'IfLi1ﬁ I'%t'V owrz right. He further cl;::ims4_.t;1at u Gccugants of tbs:

land adjg:¢¢ £§;t'4.af?::1e §ja;;nd"i;:g"poss§és*sion of tha piaintiﬁ' on the:

r1e:)1't%1erI1 :3iti}:. ";;y; ":3 to encroach upcsn the suit s<::}1€:<:iu71€_v . wit}:-;31}.i:'a11y right, title or interest of "VV'11?hat:;§;»%3v€:V 'type is under these circumstances, he $éu;;hiV1:b3*:_ét _€£eV£:V1*:=:e of irzjuncztion restrajﬁing the defendants fraém réitiz hiss peatxeful pegsarssion and a11_;ie3yment sf _ fﬁfi 31:3? $éh¢ﬂ ﬁ1e gjmperty, '' _ V L'§""1_<:e defendants an their appearance ﬁled tha written _.._ 'S"ta§1;mm1t c:im1yi:1g {ha aﬂagations made and iiispufing the n :_;:osscss:i0n of the plaintiﬁ" Qatar E11-.5: 311:3: S{:}I1€:d'L11€ ymperty anci the possession sf his father SiIZiC€ ﬁom the yfzar 1951. Thﬁy 4 R815: :x:<3'9<;;;2<}::>4 claim that the suit scheduie property is 3 beiongizxg tea the (3-overnmelzit 311$ is imown .

Kadanga' and the plamﬁff is trying t(§>A¢:I1Cr0aCE}"'t1}";:if§I1'Vif:£€{iS€.1i?' ' 'V claiming that it has been granted ti") his fef?¢'£.V*'1zC;r.4 7»}.:'.'171§f aiso claim that they have 33121;' '-up aV"ic%7;1'£idingT."(§i?§33%._V property and are living in the sav3";LiiiVV.._V1'§<.=x;1V§~:>*e $0it§g t;.hs f9usiness.

They ciajm that the to H 81eVi:%;h0omppa Temple and with the c0nf§¢;§;tA._VQi% _i:Vl:1% t€i§1;i»3}éjvvb..é;3I£ho1'ities, may have put up rent to the: said.

tempie. They'. ﬁtﬁzer had instituted .21 suit in .N_0. and having failed in the said suit is' ti: They further stats: that the €iefend;:i1t:;..have 'its: ixitenfion to encroach 2113011 any ianci of that 6, the defbndants centend that than: is a i<a§1 az;gai the ma af the plaintiff arid their 2am: and Z the éistan_¢e ..i§5g¥:§etxAr<.een them is aheut 49 feet. They furiher :ha;:£v...i§1e suit schedule prcperty does not belong to tha V' and these defendants have no evii design is encroach "£216 Scheéule pmperty, which is a paisaxy land, They €:it3'::1}--' iiihe p}ai13t:'ﬂ's pcrssession aver £116 suit land, G11 thezsa grauncis, 1111535 have saught fax' the dismissai of thﬁ suit. 011 {ha basis Qf £2323 ;:~:<:>.99;:2{>:;}r;

5 these pleadings, the Trial Court has framed ihe 14f9 ;iQ§3¢:3;1g issues;

i. Whether plaintiff proves that 'v posse-ssizm, use and enjzzaymtziit f)i.:'._S?.1fi"t'-}"_,f.V}C't;)§;%*:';VI"'C~*y* &L¥S' ont}:1eda'tt-':oft.11e suit'? A b A >' . ' ii. Whethar plaintiﬁ" pii_)v::Vs; §'icffe:11é;*;V§%itiVi§sv«-.}:1;*$tv-E: £10 right, iitle and i:1tcaresVfL':3§}e'r_ii1eV$11i§ pi%3p<§;1y? Whethttx' pr<§ve;3 1;1iat':i';§i%j::dants have trieé to interfmf: in hiéa Vpe§aféef"L1l.~"p§§:f$€$§$ion and use of suit ' V iv. he is entitled fear the :'eli4€*:f*;gs_QZ:ajm::.é'?_ _ --

2:. « What <:>i::%e'11ﬂ£3;,.ci"r:»<:I€e?

._f"}f§'1sE "t::;:--7a.1z?»;i:£1c:d hirnself as PW.1 and in his

--::jv'ir1,c5§:xar.e gg§t+ﬁ1:2ﬁri:€d the decuments Exs.P,1 ':0 R7', whereas thc'ai:ci'as::1dVa3:§--%l-$--:_eV§:émi11«ad the 3rd ciefcndanf. as QW11 ané in his 'svidenéés dﬁcmmenm E3233. 1 to £35 ware marked; The Tziai {;'a1i:"i«:}:'1 aﬁpmciaﬁan 9f the material an mcerci in the centext ._¥:;f'¥;;';1éb's %.1bmis$i0ns made by the counsel, heki that tha pia-ixztiﬁ' "~.Rf1..€}i§'?$ }3I'0V€d the siettied passessian over 1:116 gait pZ'O§}€I'f_'§? anti [that thﬁfﬁ was an ebstructimn by {E16 deiénciauts arm in these circumstances, granted 3 decraﬁ far injunctian. Aggﬁﬁvﬁfi by b' Gevernment 5 R39; NO_§F@j 2804 the judgment and éecme, the defeﬁdants approached éopﬁ of Civil Judge, Sr.DI2., in RA No.52/1999 and t§1c:« _ came is be aliewt-36% by the judgmant and order ~ .. whsrein the lowrsr appellate court dismissed the suit of the p:ajn1:;!rfj. Aggﬁgvm b}:.v£;s1§V'5aic1g'§;aa;f¢;::f, and deems of the: iower appe1'l:§éi:g:§.V'M'£"§{;:11'f,' has agapmached this Court in VV

3. This Ceuﬁ at {Bf of the appeal after consid£ri1:g""£h§§'V has framed the foﬂowixzg é:;;Lms;'ti§j3'1:1 'of 1avz:--

"Whather court was justiﬁed in revamiixg and decree :31: 'the basis 05 ..f£g(.P.¥3; *2"

V -- the 16311165}. counsel £31" the appaiiant ané aim '£};gé mspéﬁgfiéntg.

AA .5, PE is the mtztezmsn 0:" the leaznsd cmurxsai far the that there is ampia material on ztccrd to pmve the gmssegsien though the pmperty is owned by the and that the piaintiﬁ' had appriied far reguiarisation of their unauthezissﬁ occupaiign mix}; that ihey if 5% V./' 7 RSA NC}.99f 2084 have produced the de<;:umem.s to prove that the p1a§ Ii'fiii's father and aftar his death, the _p1ajntjﬂ is in possession of the $23.11; iand as on the date of Vthr:-.1 K V' CiI'CE1i(IlS'£E!11CffS, hf: submits that the ':-::;;},??€§;'i€:i1;fAfi_.:

proper appreciation of the material decree in favour 0f the Without assigxzing any I"ea:s:3;1s «'fh.é"di$;a3issa1 of the suit in 0.3.510. 19/192$; of ma appeal against the $aic1'.V<ir§:;:::*s?:£t " by the father of the _p1ai.t1tiff bearing S.N0,48 has €rro:1eou:$?.1§' a1'_1€iv: ¢d_&ftIinjLc' and commjttcﬁ an iilegality and in the ciré:1msta3:c§:;Is,:.L:V'b_é"'~sﬁE:~.v1iit$ that when tbs dfzfzitndants have I1(A}f..VClaiJ1t1'E€{_:vt0 .b £=: ;36$sr::ssiot;T at" the $1113: Kauai, the iawer "VV'2;ppei-33%: :§_'-3on2'; 01;1giii"'i'o' flaw confixmeﬁ the deems and in the to restore the éecrea of the Trial Court by Qppeai.

6;, " Eér sauna, the learned cauasai far the mspenﬁenis that the lewer appeilaté: Court has taken into K éensyﬁaratien the materiai piaceci on Hzcarsi anﬁ that {here is , material if} favaur 0f thﬁ plaintiff tc: garcsve the §OSS€$Si(31'.i and ?l'1CI'&f(I?I'€, he submits that thﬁ appaiiant has met made an:

F:

'M-a_.."._ ...,

8 RSA N€L1£1}9 ;' ;?{%{§£§ any grsunzis to ca}? £231' any mtﬁﬁérencc in the j1:z&g1:_:1:5:1;::':'. a1<;:d dﬁﬂfﬁﬁ of Kim kI)'i¥.?"€I' apyﬁiiatﬂ Court.

7. i have czlzlwefully sc1'uti1:is€t:_1..E..h§ m2_:fé'i'i3}:'_'pEéiee€§.. an mead 311 the ccmtext Ctf the submissiqnsfmﬁde' }.<--i§?;:.A1.7&1";:f'i::%i*.i' Ceuﬁsai.

8. Se far as the p1¢ad.::1gs;w_a_.:ﬁ ,..«;on3em§¢ei,.V,j: reievant to ﬂute that tha piamtiﬁ i:adV:%"no the fact that the suit iand is owned. bf; '§t'§1at it was in p(:>sseS$i<m ofwiéiﬁlér $ﬁ;.<:ei 1951 and after his (math, hat»; possessicsxz til} the date of instituiion iofthr: suit. Vii iS 'E::j§ éubmission that $115 deﬁandalzts who a;.j€" a;dj0ii11:§1g ::¥wnérs cf the suit iand am txying :0 evxicroa'-trh i};1';:o3f:'~ ighe suit przzaperty and in the circumstances, he hm s<:.%1:z'g1:Vii"~f¢'r jjtgjgmctien. As coulé bc seen frem the written 2 statém:_::i1t%.~ ]~xi¥h€:re tim rciafmzdants Ciaim that. they are in 7 'V__ij:('}SS€S$i§>Ii_';3f the suit iazmi. ﬁg cmﬂé be gathamd fmm para 6 _:i:u=:_:§::"itt€:1 statemem, they state: ma: the Eami ef ihﬁr piaintiﬁ"

their lam: is at 3, distance of about 40 feat and ma: the . _ .:£t:i'e::1cia11ts have no cvii design to encroach upon' the suit pmpeﬁq; which is paisarjv land; This cc-zzzentitrzl in the wﬁtteu siatsmant cieariy rﬁvﬁai that the dsfendaﬂts are 110?. ciaimirzg 3:0 RSA N{3.99 f 2004 U3 be in §OSS€SSiCI} of tht: suit land. What they contend 'ﬁhat there is a buiiding in the suit 13nd and they hz;§g¢_' 1:5Véé'i1V?. occupation of the said buiiding.

9. New to consider the cvi»:ien&§e the plaintiff, it is relevant t{Z*_I1{i's'f;('":"--'{AIf'1"¢':?-21*, the produced E3x.P,'2 a certii'1cate"V"L<;iE;f§s:1ed. i:';y _ "'t1§::

Somvmpat, ciated 18.8.19:8*9,'_ c2w'i iEii5*."Vt¥er'ri:ficate rcveais that in regpect S.No.52[1, measnﬂng O.25:c€:f:1:t$.ig 11.6., the father of the 1951 till the year 1985 has awaxtled the fm-:2 and the ﬁne has be'c~;'n_p3id N032 dated 21.3.1985. S0 this ccijfiﬁcate been producszsd by the plaintiﬁ is of V. Tihe suit cams: to be instituted by the plaintiﬁ" in ﬁjhémby, 83913.2 is the document which was in the <:"us£c:gi3% tbs piamﬁﬁ at 3 time when there was no i,",'A"r.;vfé:ni:;t3ver§sy" sc far as the pcsssssion of the suit 131151 by the T'}:1er€by, this is a strong CiI'C'G.]]1S{€1I1C{i' which favours VA V.t't1£#.p§ai11tii:f to prove: his possession. So the pcrusal of this

--~ é:io<:t1me12t revaals that since from the year 195165 it was tha father ofths pl,a'3';z1tiﬁ'and after his ﬁcaih, the piaintiff wha is in 2""

X LG RSA NO.991i2i.':O€~ pOSS§tSSi()I1 of the land and for his nnauthoxised occupai;i0;:,i ,*-.]:;<é has paié the fine 1:0 the Gevemment. .

p}ai;r1tiff has also produced the I1OfZ§C€>A£:ivat6d 3.'? 2 by the Assistant Commissioner, I\1'iad}'_;¥'£4T_(1CI'i,"":.¥. §';;'.'ff:};{;'3).'1", ?1!T§f t:E:.; father of the piainiiﬁ ﬁxizzgg tlrzé ggiatc <3.f_ E0cal T. éu 24.9.1987 and it is memaﬁer dcgige by the Assistant Commissionar tine report produced ai E}x.P.4VaI1{:l reveals that on the saié data,' inspccted the:

land which wéés cccujgation in respect sf which the noticé:_Was-- of the piaintiﬁ' and he states that thnertf a1s;{)'*ﬁ'".E1o1i;§::2_""c:;§)31s'£I12ctt:c1 in thﬁ said land. }<'urt.i1<:;.jm':.2;r:.c:, ﬁ€= ékatts that the land is under the éiiiﬁyéﬁéﬁ"ﬁixnétzjghcaxiséégﬁy aﬂd it is a Kaﬁanga iand. He: opined VV wiii 1101; be any problezm if the iand is graaiasi t:::_ .ii2€H 4§2:13p1ica11ts who had applied for ihff gram: of the " land} ths naiice ofthis Eocal inspcctimcz was given :9 the and an. inspcctiaon was dens by the Assistant "--. (:391;£missioner on 0912.198'? at a time when Ehﬁfﬁ was no Léontravemy so far as the possession of the mad is concerned and therefore, {ha {iacumcnt at E:x.§'.i and 9.130 Ex.P.4 are aise § ,, fw, ..

._v;r~ M RS5; NO.99f'20£)4 mare reievant to establish that the was in pgsgfeﬁéégn Ofthﬁ suit property all along tiil the year 198?'.

10. New, to consider the oral evidence u u in his evidence that he is in possessidn of_tt1~é si;12'_t '1::=:_:.£1:3 father was in possession of sinée frag} $535 1. 2 L' He aiso states aboat the iI1Sp&(;}T__iE)I3:_ made .¥3_*;.z_li;_lr;e vvfﬁkssistant Commissiener by issuing i}{£ifiC'C'-aﬂii about the fine paid for unautilorizrtcl occti-p.'3t§0n.*-- {DE 366:; from ths cr0ss~examiz1a§i€3:1, sﬁggiésied E9. ."i'"ﬂ1a't; the cieiérzdants are in pqvsééssiejgz cf "fie é':2j§t- ;;'&mﬁé'1'*£3? and than $33.61 suggastion has be€:11V'{§.e:1f,;edx _"§'§~:é3't1gjE;4;i*E¢::gth}s' cross éirxaminatiara is dang} nothirig 13 eiic§§€:1 1:53: rjiisbtéiigézérﬁ the eviéance of PEV. is Fsiotv, the Q;f aim ééiﬁeﬁgév of DWI} 3.6., the 3" dsfandant if '.§:t;r::is::dg_ that the plairxtiﬁﬁ'-:-. father had instituteii a 31$ that it was in mspeci 0f '£216 house pmperg;

€115 ﬁuié. H6 has gsrgéucsd 'ma csrtiﬁeé gap}! sf iihﬁ " .44';;x§;a'§n,§:niVV§}assed in Q,S&I9[ 1981 at E}x.£).1 and the certiﬁeé '_'_'T«<{:o}3§ ':::i"{hc3 jucigment passed in R'.zX.62/1984 at E1x.£},2. Tha :j'_4"pr:1*i2sa£ of Ex.D, 1 revcaals that the suit land in the said suit is by S.Nc:.4--8 and the piaintiﬂ" in 1:115 said suit was the fathszr 0fi:§1~:

giamtiﬁi He had insiitutad 'Elia mid; s21:i£ag.:a:§.nst the defenﬂazits ;

, 32 933 N<::.§.9_;2oo4 and the suit Cami: :9 be clismissad. The plazzmiﬁ' 49:54:;-:;'f:7¢'::i.

appeal RA 62/1984 and the said appeal WV dismissed and the certiﬁed copy of' "tf}1'<':'3'1,1c';..&g1;1:1_;€}:1Ai"blgzresfﬁeciz proéuced at E3x.I{I).2; So these two d0§§'a1;:$e§i§s hs.vé--:jB'<::é:1._VV productd by the deﬁsndantss do 1f,1:1c:£!e:xAjS«__t>IV1€V:ijV;:4"V '"5':-:éa11sé they pariah; to S.Nc2.48 . suit beazring S.N0.52[ 1. Apart from 'riefelzciarzts have produced the docygnzgntsithé' ' $3.4, they Wouid at the mast ig Kadanga land, butVv:mg }3::x.{3.3 or 13:x,::;>.4 is of no heipi'-.__ to._ 'tad estabiish or provs their possession. L » ..§;:1 Wow 'c:a11v;s:_1_1;ii,'zr the evidance of I}W.3;, it if; reievant ~ to n:;:it:~; 1«.¢'f1_§éI.t..t7F.1£:. 'tiﬁfendants ciajm that thzzy have at house in ms:

siiiﬁ __ n":1éj;; ciatm that this suit Eand; is attachezi to _§eith($€3mp§&'v'}%empie, Thﬁy stats that thay" pay the mm in " z§sg3€%r:__1: afﬁzsz said building to the tempsiﬁ authsgriﬁes but haw 1".'1¢'C>'§'_VV}fJi"aZA3'C1'{lCﬁ(i a single receipt or dmsumeni to pzmve the 'gtayiﬁent. Even athexwisa, ix) prove that mars is a buiidizxg in "the suit 1a:2d§ exccpt the era} versicn of ij3W.1 {hens i$ no matﬁrial <31: rﬁcmrtzi 3:6 prcevs the existencs ef {hair hangs in LEE $3 Rﬁéfa N€3.§§;'20il34 saici land. Under the circumstancas, in ths ab::=.;?:3:1c:3V defemze by the deféndazizts and the Ciajm fzxr the suit pmperty and by prod uemg any S'(1C'I1---.:::i"11£3{'£€iI°ia.?§l to"

probabalise their éafence, I think tilég 'E'1i;?3 x€i;1r::>i};f':ﬁ was' in granting a ciecrea for iI1ju11cti9'11,__.

12. Th6 lewer _ appeiEa;:€'»vV_{;Q31:t h;as__ tafiﬁzil into cansideraﬁon the }'11C3gI31:€I:I:.ﬁ é311£f1'~' :Exs.£).1 anﬁ. 9:2 in the suit and also the appes;..ifgea' of the pzmfntiﬁ; but it failed to s:§itv.?.?::1§'iﬂ"r€$peCt of the Band b53119" 3 the piaintiﬁ' has not produC€é. éE§é._ pfogéﬁjg. ,0?' the suit ianci in Show his Elaﬂifi as :5: péitsom i3:1'pos-SeS:§i<311, the fact that the faihci' ef the Iiyaﬁi paid £}::c--------§;E:;;;€: under tfm cartiﬁcaie at E2-x.Pf2 for 'V-ignaiiihgrizéti :v5<3(:::c;;"u;patic)1'1 Gf the Eanci sirncﬁ from the year 1951 '£6 was a1::r:T"Lj«f:T2§;a£ me piamtiﬁ had ﬂied an appzicatien far 'reguiafézzaiglazi 9:' big unauthazézmi scazmpation 313$ that ihr: V' ufyaséstzégli iifemmissianer had aisc: madﬁ a $0031 inspectiany aiierz' the gzotice to the plaintiff, {he said ci0e:1.1mem:s were: 103?; " 0f the fact by the iewer appaiiatez Iiliourt. The appreach sf u «the: lewer appaliate Sour": is errnneaus in the sense that ii teak izzto csnsiﬁeraﬁen. the jaégmerit and. dacres in {},S.F\§9. 19;' ;i§81 £4 RE-A r«z:::.99;:2eo4 and the appeal thereafter as per EEx.D.2 and 3130 it c:ii{1.__ not take into consideration the fact thai in the written $iéiéﬁ2,ﬁi;§, the defandants have net ciajmed that they are in .£' '.

the suit prspeﬁy. it is no doubt;»%r1:1¢ deihndants t10r§'.i1e plaintiff have titie'-ago :j';{;e 'said. it is only the quastieu W110 is :1:1>p_d:::$essibvnVe£7 and 2 L' whethm' the possession is setﬁed p_;3§s_€:ssion oretlgeméisc.

13. The fact that :E_"£i't£ﬁ(»L~:1'f3'<;nf tﬂé has been in possession of the, itseif reveais that the plaixltiﬁ has -iii; .se:'g:i:§§ci.pé'$é}:ssjon of 'rim suit property anti ever; iI1_«"7aSé dwﬁﬁer has 1:0 seek {hit possession, he has to have ..r;ﬁ<:0ursf: t0 "L'1é"«3.;2£t/and has no right ta disgossess forcibly.' 'On V-aspect £116 math:-:r, the 1€3.}§'I1€d ccnmsei for Eggs gnsiiance on the dccisicm of the Apszgx 'Coﬁr: fm ;sa1R 2004 SC; 4&9 (Rams Gowda (Dead) by mg mg 2\:§.,.w§:}aaiappa Naidu {ﬂead} :3}: ms. And anather} ~ '««___iisherein "'i::V«§_1Ar«*V.-ih the pazﬁes jam: :9 prove the title and as tbs. was in sattiieﬁ pGSSf.'SSi£)ﬂ cef ihft said lamperigyg if: was that {he ,p1ai;1fiﬁ'is smitied ta iiecrce :31' injunctizm. S6 . intro cansiéeration the material placed 011 recozﬁ, i am of E3518 opixzism that ths Tnial {lotzrt was justiﬁeci in granting a f 'si~._w..

RS}: ?«¥€'},'f-}9 ,5 29$»?

W, U} ciecrcﬁ of injunction 311d tbs Ecwsr appcllate Court committeti ax: errer in 0V€I"i€){)Ki11g the eviﬁence 9f the 13§£1iI};f§7fi§ "".7a!1d uzxnecassaxiiy réﬁzrrizig to the dectzmezat at ET;x3wL?....}___'i?,, and errvszé in aiiewing the appeal of the deiérndanig} " Q Qbsmzve that the plain ':1Tﬁ's ;)0ssessicVi1'A"has« f£{3~ E"}€f.' 35. Kong he is eiispassessed in due ceurée of law. it is inv --1:hr:.sé~_ circumstances, I hoid that the 1o¥::§E'*..§;pp€}Lle:t§:' €1Qi;:r{V':"§V5én7bx'iitted an iilegaiiizy in reversing tbs jud.g1;1é£;$ éad dc<ﬂ:i~ea--:-A ofvéthe "E"'1"ial Court amé hence, I ansxséé:i_T questian of law raisegi in negative preééééd' .§h:_i- ﬂ;3.?.§:wing: ° \ ¢mmR The é}}§§€8l 55* judgment atzé decreé ef the V EOEVSIVE;-:§§§};3.l1ai€ {;Zg:n:_1VV1*i' in 'RA N'0.32f19§9 is $61: asitie and the V. §ii:igm?cnt"é:{:1:i_A'é;$c:ee yassad by 3:13 '§":"i3i {hurt is restored, Sd/'* }UDG

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

N D Nanjappa vs K R Ramakrishna on 20 November, 2009