Smt Nagarathnamma W/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W/O Late ... on 17 February, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Nagarathnamma W/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W/O Late ... on 17 February, 2010

Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 (NOC) 1084 (KAR.), 2010 (2) AIR KAR R 876

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 

IN THE HIGH CQJLERT C)? K.-1\R§\§A'i"AKA AT B.ANGAL_(:)Rf*L

DATED THIS THE1'i""i)AY ()1: FEBRUARY 2{}:m§

BESFORE:

THE. I-{ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AD~'§A'N'13«B'§fRM§}fZ{_J_1§VY*-:7' 

REGULAR SEC(')ND A¥?.P_EAI, 'Ng§'.'5()7 <)TE= "  

BETWEEN:

S mt.Naxggzuutilnamma, 

Wife 01' \/'21di:';.1j;1. ' V

Age: 59 ye'.11:~;,_  _  '
Vadiraja, . _ V . ._  V V 
Son of Si1'e<~3._.div£i$:1Ch21£";{'j'-- _    V. "
Ag_:<:;_{3(j 3/';e.V;;'i";'sj";,;:,V_ V 3  *

Both are fe5idi'1ag ' '
Du1'gigL1di.'4-f" P;1ra'iiV<:_i'Rozxd;---.___""« 
Shim0ga~577 '2..(_)E.» ._  S   APPELLANTS

 By S1_ii*i.I;{_,V.Shyarﬁzxp-:f;1..xad. Aelmcaatej)

-- S:"m.H'£1i_£11hA:&11£:'  Sallma Hd§d['E1l'H'd,

 Wife of i2i.t;%'Siddapp2a,

 A ..DeAad%by L.R.E-Iaiadalnxna,
 _\7v-'..i 1"c».0.f7"3'~{a1":;-:11 Karma Siddappa,

V .__""'Ag{;.d aimzzi 72 ye.;11's,

T _ "Rc:~siLii17g at Hus'.:11na1w Ex*;':':1'1si{')11.

5



Zmi Ci'(.>ss. Opposite: to Jumittaniia Miil.
Shimogt-1-577 20 E.  RIiSP()NDE%iNT

(By Si"l1'i.S.V.Pl'di<L1Si}, Advocate)

:{: :5: :5: :{: 

This Rfigtliill' S{3C()l1d Appczui is _i'_'é.1c:,!__Lmdgfii"SC<:tfioi'i'100 of ii
the Code of Civil Pi"OL,'€dLIl'€'._ 1908, Z;g£EiI1_$i théziJ':icig¢i11;3a}tiiiatnd'
decree dated:;22.l!.2005 passed h}i{¢KHV(i96/2002 tutth¢"§ﬁ6 of.
the Additional Civii Judge (Senior .Divisi'o_:t)":_md C}'iM,:Sitiiii;1()ga,, 

Liisittissiitg the appeal! and L'()1]'.i-i1'1'1--1,_iiiIi';'," thei.Ié1c;igi1te'i1ti11»iiiéi"'d}3ci"ee
dated: 19.1 l.2()()?. pa-1s.'x'cd in (..).S.No';«.t_U2.(()3 t)1'1m_thL' fiicg of the I
Additional C ivi! .iLIdf__I€ (_Ji1h*ioi' Di\"~'ii*,iiii(J'i1.)i.' SiiiI}}()g£'t ai"i'ci etc.,

This Regular Second -i.Ap_T)t3'(1ii7ih.11t)§ﬁig. E1€€:I1 heard and
reserved on (")9.()'2.2iH() tutti"'co'mitigf,(')it f()i'"proiiotsncertteiit of

Judg__ment this day, 1i'.7.'::L.i':()L1i'__E d;:1itJes"'t=:.d"t1tfc V.'f'g)_lV}Vow'i11g: -

i7§}%§GMENT

Hcatrd {tiara Com l'1.~?u.('3ii'ii(')iil"'f..iTii('3 pzartics.

 ._':'iT'i'!.1<:E..if§;11it'ies iEiiii'it:vv!7f.:?.§"';:i'I't'Li to by their rank berm: the 'Trial

iC()t1'i't» 1'-.:>1i i<i;£.5_Ii\:'.C51"i.i7ti)I1-CC.

"hm

3.  The I.'21c{s'j_ 21:4' El1'€ rclevzmt are as foilowsz

The ii;j)pEii£1ﬁ[S were the platiittiifs beforc: the Tim! Court.

aii:1tii'if;:'m.E is the wife ()i'piZ1iI1Eii.'iii no.2. it is their tsetse that one

:3



said to h£t\"t3 eittmted ownershnn in t'espeet of the e1tem:,1cE1ec'E

portion. The plztintiffs did not immedéattety initiate £1C[i()[1.V""3>LlE in

Jatnttttry E993, when the defentimtt sought to Cl}C£'(')E1CE}...Qt"t»l'ttt}i':E? "tat:

the plaintiffs property by tztying f"t)LiI1('1L1'l.iV(_.)p£'}F'~-.V.f'(}tT:"f:tlt;1'§16't'

c0nst:'uct'ion -- the suit ettme to he t'i;b1ed._The._;)hti'nt_E't't's'..V;<;EVte__is

described in the plttéttt Schedule :«~'A__£tndthe'e11c1"t'>;te'he<;i'_po:'t'f.tmtind':

described as Sehedute - B.
The defendant deniec1_t:t':e p't_z1in_t ttl'E*;2g;tt"'1'ttns and chtéttted that

after purchase of her site°t':'ae:jtsut'i:1g__50';  feet, she had

c01'tst1'Ltcted tt tttmf-ée Llfltd 'i'a:1t't"t{¢'iEEt'uI.

the pubhc 'a:1]&nt1eI'bu'r1s{'t't;t1'ee,A""t)n" the 1"t0rthern side of her pmperty

and h2t§s'exe1"cis.ed. Apt):9L§E3S$tt)E} over the sztme, since the year 1967.

 It WE1t§ C()1't7t:1A{iE}ﬁdc'ﬁd that the City Municipal} Cottncit had ésstaed L1

ni,-t_ie'e__Vd:t'te"'~._I33",v't?.E981 cutting upott the. detettdant to remit

."'a1iett';tt.ét)t*-t" Chaltgeﬁ; in a sum of Rs.I._378/--. whieh wan paid.

:1~¥e'ttene.,.« it  etaimed by the defendant that she had perfetsted her

' '*pt,)VE5St3SSit)1} of such e.ner0ttelmtett£.

5

It/eVtvtct't)ztehed H)' X St)' feet of



9
her title by way of' adverse possession over
sehedtile A and B pi'0pe:*ty."

It is also pointed out that there was no issue l'i'z1me_d 2.-ts

i"egai1is the nebulous claim of aiciverse pussessiuii by theldeVl'i:ii'da'nt'

and hence. the declaration made in favour of the-..giei'eii.<lant" is 9

illegal and iiiijust.

It is ftirther pointed out lEl>&{)7'l'i3_l' as the e'eitelLisiv<'§.ii til.' thell'3Ti3ial 

Court and the First Appellate lCO_llJll'{ [l1£El'-.tfi:elljLE(l§gi116nE in
O.S.No.4()8/E986, which \l\.'iIl.§.'il:"';E'S£l\'li f_ile.d~--.b3¢,A'tlie» defendant against

one Savit.l'i'i":1'mi1'taj5 ll"t§f"<31'Sf.W'l1ll€ l(')"w'r--2er of the suit property, as
binding the;5laiiitit't:s*is~.e0v:iee---s:iile.;l, it is pointed out that the said

Savit'hi'a_n_mia, "wzis deati as ofastlie date of suit. She had died as on

 "The sltiitwlwas also not binding on her legal

i'epi'eset1ta.t.ives', fa.s_l.they had no claim ovei' the property as on the

date t)"-i'~'..xLii;.' 'The Trial Court however. has pmeeeded to hold that

said S'l1\'l[h1'a1l}1ll21, was the sister of plaintiff N<").2 and

._'t_l'ie';'fe.§t)i'e, the l\'§'1()\'v'lt'Llg'L' til" the eiaéni §']'"l'¢ldC by {lit} Ulel'endai'it.

"-,ai}vei"sely to the interest of the owner, was known to the plaintiffs

5



H}
and therefore. the piea of ativerse p('>Ss'eSSi(')I'} ham-:in;_z_ been held in
favour of the defendant is wholiy iilegui and perverse.

it is further' gtnointed out that the encrc)aehn1e1t'a<;§1«1._the

ttotthern sside of the det'endam'">: pmperty bei11g'<t"0=  '

proved, with reference to payment of zttiegeet &"a?_4ie11_;ttiA0-If' ehz1itge}~:.

to the local authority - furthel' déiuted  of ttievt.(i'e»t'e:1da:i1t--.

any alleged adverse posxession of Se.he:iEuie 'B3 .t§1:c«>pVg;'Iy';.» 
The Counsel places s'ei%.;mee."(5'h tE'z-.5' f"t§3i<)wi11g Lvl"LAIAE1"1AtV")1'iEi(iSI
{J ) M. 1)mu' t--'. Murlzur, (2007;'-3_5<ff(_.'  " V  

(.2}f)(liT?(iJ(J}v'?"Ct'V'V   ttirﬂVGwtrpczduppcz Mallappa

Paznuzs/zerfs, j1;!e_ /99¢)' i§a}¥t:3 

and prays-vthztt the V-ztppehéii  a'i1.c.)u/ed.

'£3, i5o.m1'a. the counsel for the respondent contends

as tbikiwszv ' V' Thattghe substantial question of law fretmed by this Court effect of the jucigmetzt zmti decree in O.S.N(>.4()8/1986 VA net. at all a substamtial question of law. And even if the same 3 E 1 were to be tmswered against the defeiidtmt the jtsdgiheitts of the Courts below would not warrant ihter'ference._ the ref'ei'ei1<_je to that 'jtldglllﬁﬁti by the C.'<>tirt.~; i")t3i<)\»k wtls; 0E'Ii}= one circtit11.s_t';ttiCe';ii'i<f3 11'}{lI€I'i'c3.i evidence in arriving at findings, which _w_ei_*e~--..h()t.i_:entirely on the basis of that ﬁtdgment.

it is contended that the pat'e.ht tidii'ii_s.<;'i0i'i iii: his; evidence that the defendant. had put tip_eL>t_tsti'ue'ti<)_hi OIVC-l'ifgSCh€dLli€ 'B' prt_>pei"ty in the yeaf '--1..'<.i)i:¢f}7A the claim of ildVCl'SC p0ssessi<)n by the Ci:<*.-'i""t";"'iEdt:l't}{i€';&"'C3t'!_' Sehedulie 'B' property. it t";~:._ e'<'_)htentii'e'd-,tht-tt"-tih"e--- plea of' the defendant in the alternative ciat«i_.1jriin,2;ito".hiweT' perfected her title by adverse '*pg>s>;e:;';~:i:':)n:__twei' sui't'~sehedule I-3 property is p€E'E'E1.iSSii)iC and iteha.b1e":-,nd..iiiit ',i'l'i$iii"€.gul'd, seeks to place reliance on the foliowing E1UIhi€)1'i{iiiCSZ "

fa)" ti-.--/m Bc'iim,\':(z/wt') .8':-i'zm?I' 3'. Ki:-'(tit Ap;)uLsr) Stmnti AIR ,5!/§I§}'('f'I2€? Court 1663, arzrfg (Z9) Karlmlaka Wcz/gf'1)'m'1m' 1'. Smte off' Knmzata/ca 19.95 (4) Km' LJ .326, to contend that 2: dei"er1d;1r1£ is cmitlcd £0 Ez1};t;' ii.1L1:-:;{;1.'lVi'}%.

inconsisieni pleas in the written statement.

The Counsel also places i'€liL1jhC€ '(')i1« 1'{o1';*cI';'!2_&z'--.L);igkg({Li' Kodam v. Sa.w'Iribart' Soupczm GL1j(;.:*,' AI]? 1.999 SC c:zr'zc1'j';}€ "i%'E "L Van/<(1Iac'/1ci:[(z Gozmder V. Arulmigu 'V.*.'._s'i1,--'._~_;s'(,1H13":z.>z;}iz'1'}4 2()()..? SC 4548 E0 substzlntizlte that Vt}*--..c. é;L1b:'§ta1;-mil"~--;;_i»:.e$'E~ic)ns of law E"ra:nc':d by this Court do 11m. :11c€:L,-wzshe.1*ec1L:i5i.L€'Cr_itg:'I'i%;-£mad hence. the appeal be:'i"ejéVc'teA<i15.:,;s 11:31: 'gix9i*;..1}_: 1"i.~;c:_E(§";1:1y .SUbSE£tI1EiE11 questions of law.

7,. _V ir1'"ih_é ::b.m-'¢'v. %3Az1L:!«:g1'0L:mE, in.~;€)f2:1' as the L]Llt'3SEi(m WhcIhc--1'C'the'A ju'Li.g:11ezn Véﬁti decree passed in O.S.No.408/1996 in f;c!"-:'(V)L~!f of Ev1'1 é». CvT€T'énd:Z1I11 couid be reiiecf upon to defeat the claim of the 1:>Eé1««i,.r':tit_'_'iT"'u1u;E" zzcivzzmx-2 the cam: 0%" ihc d<:fcnda::1t, it ms to be " '". h,c: 1d i,n_.I!1e ne.gz1tive for E116 f(>11c)wing reasons: 5

It was it :_~;uit filed etgztittst one Savithrunmta by the defeardant. on the ;1ile_2;ati<):1 that she was the ow11et"r.o't7.._suit propezty, at that point of time and we»; seeking to.,j'rt'te1'fere:"Witt': ' her property. That suit was decreed ex5~p'3't'te.¢ ltjs I Sztvitlmtrnma, w'.t..s dead even as eztrh, ti:s__th:f ye.2tr'l_--9(3'7._ r.E.k{e11ii'~. the suit could be held binding on h'et"'i~eg21l rep1_'ese1itati'*..zesl in the absence of 21 Challenge to tvhe~~:;_;1111e:".l they lf:;1§ll' no claimhlotrer' the suit property on the date of the ih ye_';f.rf--V~'1987, since the property was s()ld_.:to:t1lre_plti'ittt§t'flh The trial Court having aeeeptedpthe. re21sc):.iit1.g"tha.I:S':1vrthr'a1mn2t, was the sister of plaintiff rr..t).2__zt.ndthe~:efere',' .,the__pl21ftntiffs were aware of the claim set up by therdefendztnt'"o'vertijle Suit Schedule '8' property is; not terrable._-- .. Th£.su"c;tVnt"1ot'* be s£:s;t.ained on legal principle. The ljlttdélpttieht E"éir:dV'l'~'5=¢C1'ee«lét"O.S.No.4()8/1.996 could not even have 'treeh eited'*v;1§§leVi.tie't}ee of ti plea of adveme pos.~;ession as :'1gai:1st the pl_2rl11tif_t'§.'e~'i._The Courts below were not justified in law in 1 'pltteingl l'§:EJl2iVﬂCV€ on the said judgment and det:r'ee in finclirag at ease. 44 ' 'for' At tie ferrdamt. g $4 The §.;€311Cl';:ll rule of evidence in respect nl"_}Ltd;_:e1nez1t.s' in personam of L1 competent Court is conclusive proof in ii subsequent pmeeeding between the same panties or their privies (persons whose relationship to the same right of §3t"c)pe1'£y*'i$' ~:.1tutii:;tl and successive) of the matters ztetuztlly deeidedll fi'r~:)_1i"t judgement itself. But judgements in pt:e~st;5'z1at~t~: '_E'1L;)l é.;ntr.:{t" p¢.tftes7ut'e".

not at all admissible in evidence (See: Se.e'tion 4l_.'+;-- T'lte lI°}d.l'amlV. Evidence Act. 1872. Sau'E<at:'"s ].".'c'1V'V\.':_'.l'{'"il' Eidition Volume E Pages 932 a1t1(l_4_."').33 f_:a'1t1g'_l: SfC;l5£{:A."({f. Bi/tar vs. Sim"

J Thelt--:e>l<t<. qi1e--sti'(;>lIj:~v\}'l1'e_tllte.;'.~:he clefenclant ha-tcl perfected title by ztdveyee p<)S§es§Vi<3n.,v'* ml'-re.§peet of suit schedule B property as « .r helal by 1l1e5'lC..'0t1:.'1As below. with re'l"ere:'1ee to the pleadings and the e\t'écle':i1'et3&lAwil'iu.hzuée-.t-1) be answerecl in the tteggative. in View of the fol lt)wl":--1 g ;_:_iz{1'i mg e i re u msttmees:

3

In The doctrine of :.1dverse possession wouid arise oniy when the pztrty has set up his own £idV<il'St' titie. diselaiining t_4}*re;'t-i.§iies.of' the owner mid est;1biishin§._t that he Yellitlilltid {i}{'Cit1ASix'~.r§i}' * possession to the knowtedge of the t)w:i*ei';..host.'ite to"rh.i';;: tiitvlegttncii the owner had aieqtriesceti to the same A21/Im!/i'c'z,i= 'Ki-'.{.s'l'i.<-gE2~rs;._ C/tanclrab/zagcz. {'1997)2 SC"('" 203 In order to stlbS{z'111ti;_1f'L',_ it ehtirfn i"t.)."[V'vi,'iv&i"'J.f;:1'S6 possession. the ingredients of open, hostiieeontintiousv"possession with the required ttE}i1T}EiS3._Sh();:Lii'C_lV b.e*pro\"/ed 4_tSee;i °;'>"1'c'zIc> of Rctjcz,sI/um. vs. Hc'lrpr)0! 5vtT'}'IgH/1'.{2.tv;'Q())5':VtSC_ (>52 j. Littiiess and anti! there is adverse animus, mete pcissetssitinrover"the statutory period of Eimitation is not strffit:-iei'it for the sue<:ess of it plea of ttdverse possession (See: lh;t_.»,3i';§:}zKg;E7}:'t..:s*:" «(tam .s*t'i;?gg;/2. AIR 2(}()t) SC' 1485). Unless the pkeu tJf"':1dn?'erse"v :'p;)sses::;it.>n has been speeifieaiiy raised in the pieading, put in"issu.e atrtd then cogent and convincing evidence led on id "rnxLii'titude of points the plea: of adverse possession cannot be ..;t1t{i'gt.¥;:ditsee: AIR 19591>m;%147t1:'1:;). l9 po.<;.s'ession of the land, wl1e1"ea1s in terms of Articles; ()4 and 65 of the Limitation Act, E963. the position has unde1'5;one J-it eo.m__plete change insofar as the onus is coneernetl: once at p:tt't},;jM;i?s"g'SV'es..li'%s title, the onus of proof shifts to the other patrty to"p;m{¢-.he Vitus: V' perfected his title by adverse. possessio1'2=;.

(See: P T Mm-'21Tt"l1:'k/(ct;--ma Rem-thy;tz,Rmm;;}m ('.?()tt}7-J Si', M.1)umt' vi Mtif/IL1, (2007) 3 SCC 11}? M In the case on hand, (thedvelt'el11d_;11ithatenot eategorieztlly assetted the pEe:1§~vo§'«.g3tdxre1"é:e §t')se§es's;io11.§_"-Qnflthe other hand, the primary t§lztitaal't'v.xt;:$ that' th'e«:;e is no enes'oaeh1ne.nt of the suit property. 'l'het"e%is't3tt'1l'y.:.it.lite.oni«e" plea in the etlternz-ttive. more by way £117"l':'1$t1I'E11lC€hitgitlllst the plaintiff stteeeeding to establish V"1_etiet'<:)atehnlentlofﬂsuit schedule 8 property by the defendant. Hen_Ce.._SuC'i't.it~v.ple;i;'ol' adverse possession C2-Ef1l'l()[ be countenaneed at all. "The"----lCt)'ti'fts below were notjL1sti§"ied in 21CCt3p£i1'1g the same. *T:l'et..i4s tallies us to the next question whethe.r it vt-as open to the

-.j(tefe:t1<l;.int to t_,'t}Ill.€l'lLl that she ltéid not en<;:'oael1e:.§ the suit pro§)et'ty 3

2 0 while incideiitztlly Ct)l'tt.t3I1(ilt§g that in the event the phtintiff w'.t$ able to esttxblish that there was in fact such eiiemachment W this ottght to be held in §';tV-xitei' of the tleiehtlziitt tn sL:p.p't)tft't«.._'her contention that she had pe:'t'ect.ed her title by adverse;j5't)sse§sEel: ' required in law".

The Counsel for the re.s;p0hdeht h£i1':%__pi;1_C€(l l'iEi3_itl'¢1l"tC€'~(lt1.i}dl1R~.u 2007 SC 1663 to support his ct)ih'teitt.it1n Ii"l2t.T, . i"t;c()liisiste.nt pleas were tuhiiissible. 'l'li'e»,t'2tCtis i_)t't'tE?i_;it c;';1.se E1121}? iisefully be noticed to examine whetheifVV_itV'Co_ul<l_ pfevéseti ..i-'nth service. The appeal therein ;t1'?_.)seE:1:':u't i)Vi';i'Zl éteiit the Ap;i'1'ti'tio's'i. The plaintiff had elaimetl i7~_E()"'§'l&l'«'Cfii'1ti'i~':jAl;§Er;Cii'2£:llilt_'~iiléllii share oi the suit pm;)erties jointly withiithe dete.i_1tlt:nit.s;..:!E to 7. The said defendants had 'i"SLtppt:ii*tied; pl.;1Eiii'tiff9..«ease. in the first instance. However. id¢t'et1i_dantisv.,Sl:6"l_4"--§ought an amendment to the written statement that pl;2.intitfi"éind defendants 3 to 7 could not z1C'ql.liI'€ any right A or Ainte1*eist,_,ih the joint fantily p:"ope1'ties 2-is tliey were illegitimate t.ei1il'<;h'e.n of t'hei_r father. That application was allowed by the trial £7t;ui't. On at t'e\.*:si()ti petitioégo the Htglt ('.t)ttrt that ortiei' of the triai Court was set aside reiying on the case ofM(.rc1i Spimzirtg and Wmviz-2'__g>* Mi!/5' C(}J'?'![')(N'1_\' 1.1';-1-"lira! 1.25'. I.oc'2'i2a Rum two' ('7(;;j1}9c2z'2_\' (1976) 4 SCC' 320. The High Court heid that Ltii()\f\/;iiii1i}_1_'i-Sit}-t$:i1i':

amtmdment wouid totaliy displace the cage of [iii"Piéliﬁiifi'i'~?;1i1'€i right to get the partition decree.

in the above backgroun(i,__'"--the appeal wzjis ~~{4_1jefo..=.'e1 the Supreme Court. While ta1<,ing notie-------of"V-the:.._t'cwEEc)Wi--ng observation of the Privy Couneii in the Case'(_)£'-..f§+f¢.2.Siziii-w{*M).':1 vs. Maung Mn Hnuang AIR 1922. PC 249.

i"A_.i-'i*_rtile--s. 't.')'§i,i:"v_C()ilvifE8u".t.1E':3i 13()I'i]i1']g_ but }_}E"(')'\ir'i1i.$i'.'i'QF1..V_.S'i%i11ICn'Ci'ii2_d .t(,= secure the proper ' ad'miiti:;t_i4atifo.ni'o.fijas'tice and it. is; therefore, eséentialoVtE12it:'=_tiie'§' shouid be made to serve and be i"st:b<_tg/'tiinate to that purpose, so that '<fu4i..1 'pQwe1's of ameadmeht must be enjoyed 'a'i_'t11§ji'f>'V;.ii't'(iiLlid always be Eiberaily exemised, but "no-iietheiess no power has yet been given to enable one distinct Cause of action to be substitttted for another, not to change by means o't'amend1tten§ the subject matter oi' the suit".

8 The Apex Court has gone on to lay clown that it is an equally well setileci principle that a pi'a1ye:' for {~lEH€l"iClETlCﬂE of the pvlV'dl§i.i.l'£1E1Ll 21 prayer for amendment of the written statement stan;l.§'_'oh'eii'if7fe:i'e:_;;;'= _ footings. And that addition of a new bgroLiiti'd"'c3f:'_<iel'e.r1ce or substituting or altering :1 defence or tiikiniglii~i'ieohsiS*telht pl.e;is"'i.n:

the written statemem would not be~Vob_jeci"iohab_leiadding, * altering or substituting 2-1 !1(3"':'.\{ cau$.e"'ol'ilL_a;ttio;a in the'plzi.iht may be objeciionable.

Board, l§tlzi1gcilIr1i're:lii.llSIe1lIea :'('l):]f~,.K'(."£?:l'lC.1I'C1/((1 1995(4) KCII' L J 326. 4Tllee.faCts i'::.{_hat case were follows:

.' ~A.St.a4fe..Vi)f' Karnataka had filed a suit against the Ka;?1ia'ta1'i<;i'lW'a--ki"Bozi1'd and another claiming thai the soil property '.belonglerl State and that it was erroneously notified as 'Wald _ '~i§i'r)pe.i*t}; under {he Wakf Aci. in the ;1lLeri1;1tive. it was claimed 6 24% This ruie is embedded in Order VIE Ruie 8 and Order VIII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Pmcedute, 1908 -- Both the pE'(.)'if..iSiV()E1S insist that grounds of aiteniative ciaiins are to be st;-1teei~~::;e_t;>a:_fifetteiy) It must be shown that each of the iiacciitsisli-2:.*.1.t_:'*~eiaii.ii1s_ are i mzlintztinable.

Inconsistent pleadings ai"e7no.t_ proh-ibiteti i..the_VViitii§gaht who avails himseif of the ifight to p_ress_ an iiicoiisisvteiitiieaise and etidea1v<)t1i"s to estaiblish "both the at-!teii§-ii;.'tt'é\3'eVS .by--.eo:iti":itiietoiy orai testimony places hi'i,]:i§>ES_1f i§1'W;:$e1*i'E i'i1?if;iii'ihiE"{1S€1i" entangled in iE}BXEI'iC3bi€§'dViffiQt§'§E}iV', i"i(J1-'._i:__\i'ideri--?:e'~giddziced in Siipp(')E'{ of two absoiuteiyaincoiisistetii-».,e:tse4s=yt?iiieii are imitually destructive can hardly be expeeteci to st-_ci'tiiie7 eonfi<,Eence. (Br'-mbczn. Mo/Hm' Vs. A '2}{«£f¥¢'?1L4._(:1:': 131'); ttttt I' -

" ._ "Eii"_t..|1__eugzise on hand, it cam hardly be said that the

-tiefentitint Elsi:-i'{1 position to sustain the alternate pleats put forth for ii.i"i»€:iie'yv.t;tt"e to be accepted site would have to pieaci and establish .__"t'ii2it§ not oniy had she €FIC1"OEi{':h€-d public ltind to the North of her l--J 'J1 pmpeny to the extent of ll} X 50 feel bui that she l1ac_l_ also eneroaehed {he suit p:'0perI'},-i £0 the extem of 10 X 50 f<:'el.'--v:.t_"0.lt"he south of the p1'0pe.1'{y. There is no such plea and hence llﬁhili,'-Vléi'l'llT'1 V' respect of the suit p1'0perty falls foul V. ()~f«'lhE". Code 0fCi\/il Procedure, 1908.

lns0f:;u* as the contention L1l:_>f~;ta1ilal'L~i.2l1leeieslligheof luw alrise in the present ;1ppezlz.l.,zl:'*E$' also:1g;e.l;:;;:.%el»l,,lllizwiing to the several iSSL1€S th21t'3121Vl/e is no doubi that the qL1es«t~ir};,n§ questions of law applying decisions of the Apex Court as in the "1*::su~ls, t;l__1eA'::ﬁ3'p.;'»':~l4;1l is allowed. The judgemenz and C}.f¢tl:6Atrla1llHC(3t:i"{ as well as of the First Appellate Court 'ma l1§.m1.a_g,-e {1s;.l_cl_e. The suit of ihe plaimifl" is deereecl as pmyed for w.i__ih c_r..'ast§.j..~ A $5] -

JUDGE ll "E19/sf

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court