Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

K.S.I.Area Development Board vs M.Srinivasa Reddy Etc on 16 August, 2017

Bench: Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

                                                     1


                                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE      JURISDICTION

                                   CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 6387 OF 2009


     K.S.I.AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD                                        Appellant(s)

                                                    VERSUS

     M.SRINIVASA REDDY & ANR. ETC.                                      Respondent(s)


                                               O R D E R

We have heard learned learned counsel for the parties.

We find that the trial court while considering the evidence at length recorded findings on various issues while passing common judgment on 27.11.2003 in the three suits bearing O.S.Nos. 4930,4931 and 4932 of 1996.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003, first appeal was preferred before the High Court. The High Court by a short and cryptic judgment and order has allowed the appeals to the extent that the plaintiffs have possessory legal Signature Not Verified title over the land.

NEELAM GULATI

At the same time, it has been Date: 2017.08.19 12:21:10 IST Reason:

held injunction could not be granted since the plaintiffs were not in possession of the land on the  2 date of the suit. The judgment rendered by the High Court is highly unsatisfactory. Reasons given by the trial court have not been adverted by the High Court. On the other hand the proceedings of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore has been relied upon whereas it was incumbent upon the High Court to look into the evidence adduced before the Civil court and the findings recorded by the trial court also, but that has not been done. We set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in First Appeal Nos. 591 to 593 of 2004. We remit the matter to the High Court. We request the High Court to decide the Regular First Appeals in accordance with law after hearing the parties and duly considering the reasonings employed by the trial court and the evidence adduced in the case.

The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

................J. (ARUN MISHRA) ................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI;

                        AUGUST 16, 2017
                                     3

ITEM NO.112                COURT NO.11                 SECTION IV-A

                S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 6387/2009 K.S.I.AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD Appellant(s) VERSUS M.SRINIVASA REDDY & ANR. ETC. Respondent(s) Date : 16-08-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Appellant(s) Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S.J. Amith, Adv.

Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR Mr. Subhash Chandra Sagar, Adv. Ms. Jennifer John, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application, if any shall stand disposed of.

(NEELAM GULATI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (signed order is placed on the file)