Kuvempu Vidyavardhaka Trust vs Sri P Thimmaiah on 21 October, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Kuvempu Vidyavardhaka Trust vs Sri P Thimmaiah on 21 October, 2010

Bench: K.Govindarajulu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2181" DAY OF OCTOBER 20
EEFORE I I   
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE K GOVINDAI§A}.JI}IgIIS'4" 
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL' N'O.7i?¢O   -  
BETWEEN:   I I  

KUVEMPU VIDYAVARDI-IAKA TRUST,

ISTAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, D' ' _

REPTD. BY ITS PRESIDENT  I _   

SRLJAVARE GOWDA.       ....APPELLANT

(BY SR1 M.v.SESH.ACrLALA;'ADx?.;fg__ 1 
AND: I  I A

SR1 P.'fI{IMMA¥#'5f'1.1_   "

S/O PUTTAEOVT,'  

MAJOR,  ' _   _  A

R /AT NACHANA HALLI ._PA;I...YA,

MYSO'RE_--57O.oo1'." ' ...RESPONDENT

' I  {BY 'S§$AT;SSH'wETHA"AAfAND ADV FOR C /R (ABSENT)

 '}3§SAI.iS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,

IASAENST"I"l*£E'CJIUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED 6.3.2006

PASSED .1N_ f£.A.NO. 193/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN.) & CJM, MYSORE, ALLOWED THE

  _AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
V " DATED 4.8.01 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL
  [JR.DN.) MYSORE PASSED IN OS 287/98 ON THE
_  FILE OF' THE III ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE {JR.DN.) MYSORE.



IN.)

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMESSION THIS 
BAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ' 

JUDGMENT

Defendant in OS 287/98 on the file I'I?I1'Add1; Civil Judge is the appeliant in -r «

2. Parties wiil be referreadyaceording found in the suit for convenieniee. consideration of the' "follows:

- Suit is ﬁledby an order of permanent defendant, truste@:S_ Of -A persons claiming through defendant frorr: V With the lawfui possession of vplaiint schedule property. To ciairn plaintiff contends that he is the absoiute ofdthe schedule property. It is a property

--V Deputy Commissoner, Mysore in DCD "'t,;e»:37i,<e2m%63, the grant certiﬁcate is issued on 4.4.1963.

"the further case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the property by raising several AA order?

crops. It is the further contention that the trustees of the defendant are powerful persons they are interfere with his possession. So, pray for 3. deereel'

3. On the ground that the the Written statement, learneateafrteai Jtidge' the ' following points for ozonsideratioit Vfanswerede them as foilows, while dismissingfthe ' "

1. ﬁprdoyes that he is in _ __pea"t:efi1i«1.p_ossession atftdeenjoyment of the ' schetifuie property? _

2. Whether' " pi-aintiff proves that the

- . defendant" is "interfering with his peaceful i'possess-ion and enjoyment of the suit Vschedule property?

it the plaintiff is entitled for the 'reliefs as prayed for?

FINDINGS Point No. 1 : In the negative Point No.2 : In the negative Point No.3 : In the negative Point No.4 : As per final order

4. Learned trial Judge disbelieved the case evf.-.__t_he plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful"

has preferred appeal in RA193/01 on thetﬁle. M Principal Civi1Judge, Sr.Dn., My;s'6re'.*.Appe1iete.dt1dgeVt"5 has raised the foliowing points.".__an.s§vers'p_--._r11en2 V' decreed the suit: pp . V'

1. Does the plaintiff possessien 0ver"the:'suitp'schednie"

propeyrty onythe date. of.tfhC___§ii1it?

2. Is he entitled forthe relief

3. Whether the _§12dgment.._:a1'1dv"decree under appeal are legal and proper? _

4. 'Point No.'-1__ : ' _In the afﬁrrnative _'"-Poirzt No.2 :. In the afﬁrmative "P"Qint"No..p3 2 " In the negative '{_'Pe_i11t"NO.4._: As per the ﬁnal order " ' T for the following:

5. This is how the defendant in the suit is before this Court.

6. Learned advocate for the nu if two weeks time is granted, his; c'iieri't Would. written statement.

7. Learned advocate for f§:t&}71e2V"eaxreator/respondent Srnt Shwetha is 8,. ---- it 'qliestion that arise for considerationVisV'thi.sVta;5pea} is' "Whether the defendant is justified ._ permission to ﬁle V. A_ thevﬁritten Vstateinevntin the facts of the case"? it law that the lis between the parties can adjndicated if the Court were to ﬁnd out the real hetween the parties. But learned tria} Judge has ' diislnissed the suit on the exparte "evidence. Appreciating the very same exparte evidence, learned Appellate Judge has decreed the suit. 'I'he____on1y point that is urged by the plaintiff is that he has title by purchase and he is in possession of the*-- ' the defendants are trying to interfere with ll of the property. Out of 15 documents the plaintiff, not even a notice.,:;i's~.v_issuhed.__to_&e " V to atleast come to a co:1c1usioin~--lt}"i:atltlftere is'vintet§"ference in the enjoyment of melt So, the Court is of thelof ﬁnding fault with What tslhetter to direct the tria} Cou1*ta»t.od iyyritte:n..._s';tatement if filed within 15 days, decide the case afresh in accordancewfith law4;'t.Tl1:§{efore, the orders passed by the V. A_ Courts Zhelow a1'e*'set_gaside. appeal is allowed.

35/1:

Iudié

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court