Karnataka High Court
Shri Mohammed Ibrahim S/O Late Mohammed ... vs The Commissioner Bangalore ... on 15 April, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
ul-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Am BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15"*DAX 09 APRIL, 2Q§§ja
BEFORE V
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE s.AB3UL $AZ$£R ;"
R.F.A.No.148QAo§ :®@5 ="
BETWEEN:
SHRE MQHAMMED IBRAHIM ., _
3/0 LATE MoHAMMaB_GHousa-f-'
NO.436, 9TH cRos3jfi 1 --.'"
:1 BLOCK, JAY£NRGAR ' _.: _x;_ .
BANGALORE w_560 Q6§_x z , "°v*g;;,, APFELLANT
<8yTsMTffAfiB:KA}'§3V.> . "**
THE coMMi33:QNaR;,§
BANGALORE.QEVELOPMENT
,_ Aa$HQRITY,"aa;;aRY ROAD
"-'HANGELQRE - 560001 ... RESPONDENT
2 °,{B§f5;i E K V MURTHY, ADV.)
V Tags REA ES FELED Uffi 96 OF c9c AGAINST
THE JUQGMENT AND DEGREE DATED: 26.07.05 passaa
_, Im§~o;s. NQ.520/97 {E6 THE FILE <3? ITEZ XXVI:
_'nADDL: CITY CEVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE DESMISSING
"_TH$ SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTEON.
T THIS RFA COMING ON E'C3R ORQERS THIS DAY,
" THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2...
J U D G M E N T
This appeal arises out of the jedeement and decree in O.S.No.520/97 detedm"25;ji?Q@5 passed by the mvr: Ae;;;;1::.on--a1»Qjczzitgr<--_c:r_~§r:VV3r= Judge, Bangalore. Appelieet~waSitee'eieiniiffi in the said suit and the reeeohfient was the defendant.
2. The plaintiff fled filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injefietiee restraining the defendant; hie egefite;ieervante and officials frem *treeeeeeifig "into the suit property, dispeeeeesiege_hifi' and interfering with his ~eeeeeeeioe*i and enjoyment over the suit *i"eehedule°_ property. Recording to the fl plaintiff, he is the owner and in peseeeeion end eefioyment of the suit property. It is AA°ferther contended that the suit property was ieiletted to him by the then City Improvement Trust. Board (for short 'CITB'). The Ceurt below' has dismissed the suit holding that '"{os l'__EdV0eate though it was handed ever to him. 3 plaintiff has not produced any materiell ShOW that the site in question was ellette§_ him by the CITE.
3. The appellant ~ hag' Wfiledez application--l.A.Ne.2/20087'eeetifigelpegmlsel ef this Court to lwltbdrew_ the 'efiit"jwl liberty' to filel a freSh'*euit"'en ,the ea +-
L subject matter. 'InF_ihe fagplieation, appellant has etetefi the? he fiad not iseu statutory'l""::et;;"?ge . {,z~;f::;;le_1:_* Section 64 of the Bangalege Develeement Rot, l976. It is fuxther heugfi the eta d_ teat "t appellant was in eeeeiee of tee documents to establish the ~the site in question and other d0eumente§ te establish that he is in "";V"peeeeeelcK: of the said site, they' were not «Kpf0deced before the couzt below by his It is further contended that he ll should not be £0 to ~::3~ ' THE he ed ...7...
of the appsilant that the appellamt_ had furnished necessary documents to his Rdvoosts which would establish tho allotmshts:of"o£heV sits in question in hiss favours ssdx other' materials to show thafio hs hsgfi_sge5, is possession and enfioymént of 'the 7ofopsrty} However, said doogmsnfis Hsvs nos been produced before the court ' V
8. spgolioation I.A.No?2f@fi is hs§soy.si;ossoL The sppellanfi is To @s:$itfso»os so; : withdraws the suit O.S.No)52Qfi9§7 "o§' the file of Xxvfii Rodi. fifty CiviI*Jsqgs, Banqalors, with liberty to . figs fresh suit on the same subject matter and ' the same cause of action. Appeal is disposed of aooofdingly. No costs.
TV KL'5E'/ Sd/--
Iudgé