Sri Chikkamajje Gowda vs Sri Alagiriswamy on 4 March, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Chikkamajje Gowda vs Sri Alagiriswamy on 4 March, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

I
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL()RE

DATED THIS THE 4"' DAY OF MARCH 2(.)i()
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDIDY

REGULAR SECOND APPEALS 16 OF 201()~€~!i§1i§'__rl:  

BETWEEN:

Sri.CE'1iE<l<a11"najje G()Wd£i.

Son of Puttegowcia.

Aged about 73 years,  -

Residing at Kuttuvzzdi Village,

Hunsur Taluk,   '  j:

Mysore Districtw585 201.    "   V"APVPEL.LANT

(By  M7.W153":lv?yukI1a1. Advocates)
AND: C

Sri.A1g;1g'i1'iswa1:11}-=,.,_ C' V

 ' 'V ' «.023 v.é}f':~N;;:.1ja: ),~.z111;:sw-a'm- 'V
' . Aged ab()u§(7~4i"y.:az11*s,
 R€':s§di'p.g  Ka1'iC_n1L}ddanahal}E,

B;1;'1<a;:e I9i0b~i.i_.  
Htlrssur T2zi:.1k};.-- A

; Mysc>i*e..Di.stf:ctw585 201.  RESPONDENT

This Reguiar Seconci Appeal is filed amder o1'(i:':r 4E Rule 5, C '11-:'2rC.V<§ with SecEi0n.E{){') of Code of Civéi Pr0c:edurc:' 1908 agzainst .;"""

'. M3'-

the Judgment and decree. dated: 3().l().?.O{')9 passed in RA.No.64/2(){)9, on the file of the Presitling Officer', F3a:;t"--7fi'aek Court, Hunsur, dismissing; the appeal and eL>nl"i.;'l:i.i:i'i«gFthe Judgment and Decree Llatetl: 7.6.2003 passed in ().S~;l'--lo'.VV.85/.j'l999 on the file of the Civil Judge. (Junior Division) L1£ld--'.§llVll:CiV§ _ ' This Appeal t:.orn_ing on for attj'rniis's'ion ';:.liis_.,tl_it'y'.._ tlie-.iCou.i*t. 9 delivered the following: --

The appellant was the :17-Ifl'elVlAV,i'iC.'()Lll't. The suit was for bare iitjunctlonli set up a defence that he was the land in the year l995 and suit property and there was no l..tlheliidel'e11dant in the plaintiff's pi"opei'tyi';t_nrlM bt)L1_nd--:.ii'--i<:s'-._o'E'« "which were not even imlieated. Htsyy-u;9\»='et?..s. the Cl'3l.lVl'lilT>t'ii(}.\*»-l liars 1"efei'retl to the grant ll"1d£i'L? in l"avour .oftlje {_)vltil.1l'ti'ili.l'h'~.';'1ll('l the grant made in favour of the defendant and has"-.l'<)Ltn{l."_"'tZz1\&Tt#t1i' with the plaintiff in grantiiig the relief of permanent injunction in respect. of the suit property. This having, affirmed in appeal, is sought to be questioned hy the tfefeiitlaiit herein.

.. "3-"\\¥{ K 3

2. It is his p1'i1]Tt'1l'y contention that it czmnot be Sttid that the Suit pt'ope:'ty and the pE"()pt'31'i'\-' g1"d1"]{€d tinder the sagttvzili chit in t}.-1vt)ui" of the ztppehztm W de.fendant were one and the same and hence, the grant of relief' oi' iiijtttietitiii has the effect. of t'iegati:ig the right in respect of the property granted tn the the saguvzili chit of the year 1995. This atpgwehei1.>;--it1t1"=isVhi1.i'spla:::eL1, i If it is the ease of the appelhutt that the jtutigitiieetiti ililitji i(i'eC~l.T__et;:;fi31' permanent injunction in 1'espect'Qt"*--{he suit pi'<)pei'tyi h2ts.._Vthe.3eft'ee-t'* of divesting the ztppellaiit, of hie_121tii§.._wh_Vieli i'i£iS-.bt}BVt]i§gI'E1t1[€d in the year 1995 out of largei' exteiit_V(3»t'::'suﬂ/hey'.i"10,i0, as pointed out by theeotirtsibeitijvhiiitVi'i'is_:"a1w'i1ys open for the appellant to Eldjtkciicilic his 1i'i_g1it":_11'id po$".<.;:-?ss>;it>11 of the lztmis Ct)\"t'.31'CLi i.1§'3(it'3I' the sagutjgaii chit in' .h_is7t'ztvi)ur in an independent suit. He is not ptfeeiiurieti:'f1*tSm_.d()itig so on aee<)tmt of the jtidggitient and decree in t.tiaie._;m fi'ie_d"_;he plaiiitiff.

ixwgw'-E;

'Tl1e:'ef'0re:, in \-'%e\x.=' of cuncur1'cm EEm§i11g:_s of £11; couri beiow, no substantial question of law arises for c0saS'ic*.<i5¥*z;'t'i£.)11. The appeai is rejected.

FIV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court