Karnataka High Court
Shanthappa vs State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF MARCH 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
R.S.A.No.1402/2007
BETWEEN:
Shanthappa,
S/o.Hutchegowda,
Aged about 62 years,
R/o.Jodigummanahalli Village,
Chinakurali Hobli,
Pandavapura Taluk,
Mandya District. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.Syed Akbar Pasha, Adv., for
Mahantesh.S.Hosmath, Adv.,)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru.
2. Tahasildar,
Pandavapura Taluk,
Pandavapura.
3. Dy.Tahasildar,
Nada Kacheri,
2
Chinakurali,
Pandavapura Taluk.
4. Assistant Director of Land Records
And Survey Settlement,
Sub-Division,
Pandavapura.
5. Surveyor,
Office of the ADLR,
Sub-Division,
Pandavapura.
6. Krishnegowda,
S/o.Hutchegowda,
Aged about 65 years,
R/o.Jodigummanahalli Village,
Chinakurali Village,
Pandavapura Taluk,
Mandya District. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.M.Elizabeth, Adv., for R1 to R5;
Sri.N.S.Sanjay Gowda, Adv., for R6 (Absent))
******
This appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the
judgment and decree dated 20.3.2007 passed in R.A.No.18/2005 on the
file of the Prl. District Judge, Mandya, dismissing the appeal and
confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.1.2005 passed in
O.S.No.107/1997 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & JMFC,
Srirangapatna.
This appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered
the following:-
3
JUDGMENT
This is plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.107/1997 for declaration that he is the owner and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 5.1.2005 has decreed the suit in part. The plaintiff is declared as owner of the land bearing Sy.No.57/2 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas shown as a b l k in orange colour in the Commissioner sketch No.1. The prayer for injunction has been rejected. The counter claim of the sixth defendant has been partly allowed. The plaintiff is restrained from interfering with sixth defendant's possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.57/2 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas shown as k l m g h i j in yellow colour in Commissioner's 1st sketch.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.18/2005. The Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 4 20.3.2007 has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The appellant-plaintiff has been directed to pay compensatory cost of `3,000/- to the first defendant and `2,000/- to the defendant No.6. Aggrieved by that, the appellant - plaintiff has filed this second appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is aggrieved only insofar as it relates to the direction to pay compensatory cost of `3,000/- to the first defendant and `2,000/- to the defendant No.6. If cost is waived, the appellant does not press the appeal.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that suitable order may be passed.
6. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.6.
7. Insofar as the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he 5 does not press the appeal. The Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal has directed the appellant-plaintiff to pay compensatory cost of `3,000/- to the 1st defendant and `2,000/- to the defendant No.6. The litigation is between the appellant-plaintiff and the respondent No.6. Therefore, the direction to pay compensatory cost of `3,000/- to the first defendant is unnecessary.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of confirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below and directing the appellant to pay compensatory cost of `2,000/- to the defendant No.6. Insofar as the direction to pay compensatory cost of `3,000/- to the 1st defendant - State is concerned, it is hereby set-aside.
I.A.No.1/2014 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss.