Y A Nagaraja vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Y A Nagaraja vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED '};'HIS THE 15m DAY OF' SEPTEMBER. 2010: V 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MILJUSTICE §1.B1LLA.P92_;'V.VV'Av%%T(fj' %

MISC. FIRST APPEAL No,894:;,/200$: (t:.?'C')'  "   X. { T

BETWEEN:

Sr1.Y.A.Naga1~aja.

Aged about 45 years,

S/0.Sri..Y.V.Anj anappa,

Residing at N0.1276, -. v

15* Floor, 18' Main,   V
Gandhinagar,Ye}ahar1ké[--, V_ 1:   = '
B8119-a10I'€~560 05%'  'V C. R  if; V "" " ...APPE1LLANT

[By 511 RS. Maﬁju:i1a:h;:*;§dv%;)~{j
AND:  1' '  A R

E. Staie ofﬁarnataka.' - 
 -By P'ri:1é*:ipai;i Secr<:'tary__, _
  Ur'°ba1"i 'f)e\??(5E0§)ment Dept,
'M.€.,B'u11d1ng%s;.A_  _
DAr*.-.A111-bédka: "\7eec_3.hi,

 "   Banga1ore~55.a);_ Q9 1.

 The  Slum Areas,
 "{.En"1proven1.eht. & Clearance) Board,

 4' Risafldar Road, Seshadrzlpuram,
Bangalare-560 020.

 __ "By its Commissioner.

%

a,/%



2

3. The Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhawan,
KG. Road.
Bar1ga1ore~56O 009.
By its Commissioner.

4. The Deputy Commissioner.
Bangalore Urban District,
KG. Road,

Bangakwe4MM)O09. is :.§REs§§ﬁ$3ﬁNiS,i

[ByShiBJ?Radhaﬁx*R{1 ,i we-u T.-.
Sr1'.Ramachand1'a.R.Naik, H.C.G.P    V   

 ._   

This 1V£isC.First Appeal    43 Ruie 1[r] of
C.P.C. against the order dated 10/ on LA. No.3
H1C1S.Dhx598/2009jnitheiﬂejﬂﬂxvijkhﬁﬂonazCHQICHVH
Judge, Bangalore,.--vdis1ﬁis*sing:  1\I_o.3  under Order 39
Ruie 1 and 2:¥of  ' d

This Mise."'<§'i:rs_t on for admission this

day. the Co;1:rt:..de1i\}e'red' the following:

fﬁqunemnﬁr

*   Counsel for the parties.

  Tiiis  is directed against the order dated

  passed by the XVI Additional City Civii Judge,

  City, in 0.8. No.598/O9. on I.A.3.

%



3

3. By the impugned order, the trial Court. has
rejected the application filed by the appellarat; for temporary

injunction.

4. Aggrieved by that, the appellantmp1ait3t.iif§"h--a.;$g'iIfijieiiu 

this appeal.

5. in brief, the facts are:
The appe11aI1t~plaintiff has   
for deciaration and mandatory inj1_;_:::i'Cti_o:1_p._   said suit.

the appe11ant-p1a.intiff has  appluie-a'ti:o11, for temporary

injunction   rej'ee'ted.u_';Fherefore, this appeal.
6. The  the appellant contended
that except; the hofueee'ahd.x'*:he shed put up by the appeﬁant,

  property has been taken away by

 the  also submitted that the appeilant is

 ihposseséri<:>n..__and«-"enjoyment of houses and the shed.

t,/



4

'2'. The iearned counsel for the 21%' respondent

submitted that the trial Court on proper consideration of the material on record has right.1y rejected the applieatviroin-._e_and therefore, the impugned order does not call for . She afso submitted that no rnatderia1__is.p1aeed'o'11..free'ord to show that appellant has put up therefore. the impugned order doeshot eat!Vfortnterferenee.

8. I have earefuilyse.onsid-ered'the sub«'rnissi.eE1'1s made by the learned eounsei for the

9. the learned eounsel for the appeliantdt Board i.e., the second respondentv 'possession of the suit schedule the and shed put by the appeilant.

The that he has put up houses and fih-otogrE1phs_"é1}-so produced. T o the extent, of houses and the w,h_iehV"the appeilant claims he has put. up, his interest n_eoeds.Vto'"'be protected. To that extent, the respondents are restrained from imerfering with the possession tiii the ex» disposai of the stliii. In so far as the property in possession of the second I'€S§}0I"ld%Z'.I1t is concerned, the order passed Trial Cour": is conﬁrmed.

Appeai disposed of, accord.ingIy.g A I.A.1/10 does not surv»Ive_. fo147.V_oor1si<ié'£';3.t:i'o.I1 accordingly, it is rejected.

L1'/JS

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Y A Nagaraja vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2010