Ashok Kumar Chowan vs A G Anwar Ali on 21 August, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Ashok Kumar Chowan vs A G Anwar Ali on 21 August, 2009

Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 KARNATAKA 70, 2010 (1) AIR KANT HCR 849, 2010 A I H C 1662, (2010) ILR (KANT) 903, (2010) 3 KANT LJ 423, (2010) 2 RENTLR 267, (2010) 3 ICC 696, (2010) 4 ICC 320, (2010) 2 CIVLJ 619

Bench: V.Jagannathan

2

3

IN THE man 230mm' 09 KARNATAKA AT BANGAL:";R M//
Dated the 213* day of August   A. V
% :BEFGRE: j:   ¢
'THE HONBLE MR.JUs':*:c1s >;mv,.5'A<3AN:§i3;T"H.A:~;% Q  
CIVIL REVISEON PE'l'I'}'i{Z}N mgggg   '  T T
BETWEEN : « % 'V ' 1 " V '

.1. Ashok kumar Chowan; 
S/0 Kur1danmai,..V A  =  
Aged about 47 yc€LrS.'._ ;  1   "

 Sm1:.ind:i:ra,     v_ A 
W/<3 A;sh'<3.k'_'Kuma:f Ch0w;3z?1 ,~.  V
Aged   ' 

B£;2;:h"'"a:.::'V«::3§oV. ;;.¥.;)'4 

: BaI1g2aJt:re~f3;6»'t3_(}5.3. _
  .  "   ' ...Petiti(}ne1's

( 8}; Sri  Shivasharasnappa, Advocates.)

Aﬁﬁf

'    Ali,

 ' S';'~Q"AbdV:11 Gani Yusuf Sait,
"  Agci-ii about 59 years;
 1E~_?f';3¥:.T{}3I1i Max:211, No."7(),
,. Masque Read Crass, F'ra.2:e:' Tewn,
I'3--é.3;1ga1<n:'c~5.

"   D,P.'i'§'1a1m'x1aiah,

S/<3 Palanéziihra, Ageé about 85 yeam,
R/01' Kate Beaadhi, Fart, Gi1bbiT'O%'52'1'1,

Tumkur Distri(:1:»:'"5624« 14.
. . .R€SpOI}(i€TitS

{ By S3;iJa3;1ardha3;1 Q, Aévmate fer R-1.)

"1
'v.
V,

E 
in j 
2 I

3 3



Cﬁivii Revision Petition ﬁled under Section}.  of

the (3.913. against; the cider dated 3.  
IA in ().S.N::>.1f;907/2006 on the {"238 if t11t%:_A'_j}§'f§<"?5i:i"I¢'A:i(i'},.& 

City Ciivi}. Judge, Bangaiore, dié,ﬁii'Ssi'v:_1g;é 

ﬁled by the defendants therein  "{i)rdCr '£'.. 

thii (I3§'C.

' 'his petititgm Gaining vAG;:. i1:\I*"1r1&a1'iri'g~thi.s:§ day, tile

Cmurt Izrzade the foliowiﬁgq  3.

This,  Eetiiiéfil ' is: '  defeI}cl2:I1'.:s--i2 and

.3  :1"-¥ic5VVV's1t1it ﬁled by R-1 plaintiff.
The  by the application ﬂied by

t.hr2::11.. 7 Rule 11 of the €3.P.f.3. stzeking

- ~  - ;f¢5}i:;:t_i'{§1": {if @116  beilflg dismissad by the trial C<}L1I't.

  :~g;;;:;s' brieﬂy stat:-3d are mat Rd plaintiff filed

thé suit. isfquestioxz by contending that he: was a tenant

  "us}.§i€:v' ' the: ﬁrst dejfendamz in 1'e$pe<i:t of the Shep

 §V:1"z9e1A:f'11is€s beagring aid N0.44 and new N0. 267, Crld

2 " '1'haragupet.e, Bangalore, on a xnonthly rent. sf'

R$.1_,2(')O/~ and advancﬁ of Rs.2,iG,()U€}/- and was

32



3

(":3r1?"yéI1g on business in agicultura} pI'(}d11C€: markﬁt

commcydiﬁes. When the plaintiff sought rapairsrte be

eifacteti to the sheep premises, the ﬁrst defen:i:a:j;i

refused and this isd the plaintiff to ﬁle   

¥3Cf£)1"'€: me Small Causes    

10255/1990 and follawixzgtbge pé§;'s~§i:";,g of

Act af 1999, the mattar  t<:;~:'f§t}1e Rent
Comroiler for adjudigggggn   uaeéggd petition
was di.siI1iSSe.d,_f0I'  lﬁhwever, as the
shop    the plaintiff had
to keg.) ii: __ke;;. Taking advantage of the
said pt:+$i-t:i<u313,V'ti*:€::  geld the Shep premises

al{'1§:1:'g v with 0Vfh<é1:'vvv_si1g%;p premises ti) daferxdantswﬂ and $3

' j(w::{;a   petitjeners herein} under 3. regstered $3.16

 :;"c=;:¢ $&'a;§'e,;i ;%.vS'§"12'2<:::35§ It is the piaim; aliagatien that

 131$'  ﬁcviaferxdants-«i2 and 3 deznoiisheci the Shep

V' V' V. }3i1i3 éi::i'g (iuring the $€C{)I1d. week at' February 2006 and

 ?:§;v'ei1 thﬁr. poiice ciié rm: take any acticm against: the said

wdrgferidaxxts and ever: the first defenﬂant rsfused :0 do

the :':=:pai1"' W'0i'k. Citing all thesﬁ reasans, £116: plaintiff

3/

I



4
sought the following reiisfs as could be seen from the

prayel" column 0f the plaintz

"Wherefme, this Hon'b1$ Court; may 
pleased to declare: that damoliﬁon of    
S{3h€d¥_Il{3 praperty by the defendarﬁs %
Ehﬁ 23¢' week of February f£€(}'()'t:34 is  
1}11a13JihOI"§Zf3d and (ii)  7-T
defendants to rest0reT pQ$seVé*,si§$11 oi' 
schedula prcspexty   éifter
I'€(:(}I1StI'11CtiO:i1. tizg  " 'vvmzy

-:3t}:1€r reliaf or  Collrt
deems  fix; gfai1t:1t§_"   in the

:'iI1t<:r<~:$'£ jjisticsf"

3, 'I.'h€i,_ﬁ;1'$vtVE1¢f§3?f1:iz;f;t4fﬂed his wfittexl statermznii by

Cgiﬁgeﬁdémg {xii-at:  piaiatiff vacated the pr€.n:;.ise$ in

' ;q"u€Vs$;i.:}:1A "'¥:}1_.e yam' 1999 but, kept it under lock and

.  }§$i=®e11;¥)er 2085, the plainﬁff approac.he:d {$13.6

 f"1r§: diéfgiiﬂant for campensation by way cf cash and the

" " zi§'f@1';cl.a311: paid the same: :9 the piaintiﬁ' in a sun} of

VRs.'5(;'gG00/~ and ﬂxareafter, the first defendam sold the

shup preinises ta «::i<:':ft:r1éaI1ts--2 and 3 and, subaequent

to the said event, the said d$f€ndants---2 and 3

}/

'2 a'



:3

coiirt aiso placad 1'€i1iE11"1C€. on several decisions Citﬁé

before him.

5* I have heard the iearried ceunsel fbz" 

and perused the mateiiai placsd.

6; The siibrnission Q1' tiie iiE§81'I1'€§€i:' Caiinéei "f{;i"__ 'aha

petitiorixirs is that, the  c0I_'u'¥:' Was': i,,v1.,.¢ij1*c§r i131'

rejecting the appiicaiion   ilhjstiiiengéirs under
Drtier 7 Riﬂe 11 of  in the facts
aémitted by  si<i"e7s'.;-    of the plaint

aV€f1}1611§Siif$§f'3i.f,._itiSi§;f§};1{f¥I1§i€d that the piaintiﬁ' has no
Iegai  iitci  :ffi1"'_::VV'4'CJ1'.{§C1Ei1"'£ltiCJI}. relief against the

defc;:i"1(iantsVai1§ti1e plaintiff was a tenant under the first

'V   folkzswing the p€ﬁti0I',i€I'S having

   suit premises from the first defendant

uiiiierki régistemd 331:2 deﬁd, I30 iegai right, tharefore,

 V'   said to 1:16: in aicistence as far as the plaintiff is

'7--:ci:'ic:e:1';1e:d. Siliﬁﬁ tiie d€II1€)ii1ZiO1'} of the structure is

2 V" "admitted by both parﬁes and as them is no premises in

€XiS§€}"lC€, the: questian sf putting the piaiiitiﬁ" back in

pcssessiuri does 1101: 

%

V



2...

F

2?'. After the expiry 9f the lease, the plaimllff no longer
remaintzci a tenant under the ﬁrs: defendant_ and,

therafcre, 1:116: ma} Caurt was in error in not acéepiaiwng

the application ﬁlﬂd by; the pefjtiorlers  

thc raliaf scxught could not have "hem; gzizhifédi " » 

itstéif will 110': be Illailitaizlable 1;L?;?it1";?_'_'

saught by the plamtiff. Iii  coiing:€:tig)i§,  V L'

ceunsel fer the petitiengr-$- w:A"§;§.aC4:d i"é1ia_.v.1¢::e§ on the
decisions reportad     AIR 2001 SC.

2559, AIR 20% VCa1:;L:t§a1:4k§2o{3j£;1§g %2t::?J7 Kaxnataka 91,

AIR £955 mas Calcutta 371, MR 1971
M,F. e5,"'%A:R%1§aé=Ke£§:a 131 and 1993 Supp. (3) sec:

 tv{0L's:,*C:nt<2x;'(7iciV1;1;}HaA1;.t31<~:- suit in tlrxtt present farm itself is

'  because, as on the date of the suiig

"vs>'§i€::"1  was met in possessiezm 9f the: shop

 }3r€m.iz-:&::;:*. in questien, the suit for deciaratian and

A {f géimanent i¥1j1.¥;E1CiZi{)I} is ﬂame tn be tiisniisseci as not

Vignaimtailxable because, :10 dean-3:: far perxnanent

injuncﬁolz can be ganted if the plaintiﬁ' is not in

pv(}SS(?:SSiO}'1 as 011 the data of the sllii.

at?"//»

3 I'



8. The submission that is made by relying  the

ciecisioll in the case 0f The State of Madhyc;   %

Khan Bahadur, mported in MR 19'? 3  .. 

Whexre the plaintiff sought a déf_c1a¥:a1j.iionj.ih,.'a s;:;:_ ﬂied

after his Caasing to be a tenant, he wiaﬁ  ﬁoﬁ v

to pay anything mare ivvbf way of
rent for his pas?  " building, the
declaration ciainged (;*.3xi}.;£{:"s:j1();t   £16 a dctciaration
as to   to any property"
and  declaration was not

Inaintainabié; x  _» _ é * '

9. _ _'i'11e"i;'.<3_(':isi0',:1 Ai;;1Vt;if3.t: cast: mi' Kewal Chand Mimani

 V$. 1'S'A}{;$:=;n, sepmd in AIR'. 2001 SI). 2553, was

  1ixQ:*é$:'s¢'t.'1&V_'i1t:€¢:T._$g:Ivicr:: 1:9 submit that (31186 the possessory

   <31' shifted ﬁnm the 165566 and 31%

 nicasé. -Hféieézd is iierzninated during this temporary

A'  i;E1iZ€:§.'Z'f:g]f1UZI1 Wfiﬁfi the lessee was deprived Gf its

VA  V.  rﬁassassiozz, the questien of putting back tha 1€SS(i€ 011 to

{ha pﬁssrzssian, after tha axpizy of the lease in

aCC{}I'daI1Ctii with the pravisiens of iaw, does not anti



«z



§

C$:3.I1I1{3?. arise arm? in any evarzt, right to be restortaci with

status quo ante wili be Contrary tax the basic prifitéples

ef iaw. As such, in the light of the 

the trial court ought to have rejected the; §,!é§'11t§  .

1.

0. (311 the other 1'1and, the 1 plailutiﬁ" argueci that evsrsf '-réiief * prayer ccslzmm (}€;¥3f1I1()3Z be: gfafi%:~.é§:i~.bji t}i<:«- ﬁiouxt, yst, the piairitjﬂ' can always "«%n1¢:3;giaVLL'}j1:.r§e% relief and seek additional reiirif vand:.'ii"'i:i{"foi* '£0 decide as tc} whjcifitif' *:530§:ighL, 'i:i*ité'V'sL1it of the pia:i1':tifT can be V contended that the piaintjﬁ' has takézfa fsgtxnf. hm plain: that he was never ouit;"':0f?»_'po:::_$<:ssibi3""bt:t, 01} the other hamrl, the premises £I;e2 .S' ﬂgmoiished by the defendants subsequsnt pLifa:§Vi';%¢se of the same by defendants--2 and 3. As such; plaintiff' is entitisci to seal: delivery 9:"

§"x3s$€ssi3n by virtue of Sectiazz 5 0f the Speciﬁc Reﬁef get.

11, Thtii fuxther gubmissi-:i)3:: made is that, unsdar the Emiian law, pessession zrjf a tﬁtflﬁiflt, who is Ceaseé :0 be a ,3":

1a tenant, is prstecteci by law and aitheugh a tenant may {mt have the right to contirme in possession as per the ter1:11iz1s.tion ef the tenancy, his possession is jtjfﬁdieal and title}. possession is protected by a L"

therefore, a tenant, "W130 is ceased to besj 'te1ixsi1t_ uiay__ sue for possession against hiSfblaI1bCi}e:):fd"._if: 4:11-e"}.§.113d'1:,)1f<§; deprives the tenant of his,po_ssessiQiI oﬂzeiwjise thé;1;1"i:1 '. due course of law.

12. The f11rt:12e1' su'i31f1ission;;' mam: is that what could be I:e1ve§rTs;1xt.V.fer (<3) sf Order '? Rule 1 1 of the is in the piaént and for that purpese; there. 'be any sedition or subtraetisa a;"1%i:":'fer.:ti'2e pux1"p«t)'seV of invoking Order '7 Rule 110:1) of t}1e'VCe:de; ~*:ii:. _3H10Lﬁ1t sf evidence can be ioeked into and f:1::f§her5.'jissues on merit ef the matter which may erise"be"i:ween the parties weuid nut be wii:131'11 the realm C0111': at this stage and all issues shall not be me % subject of an errrjier tmder the said pmvision. It is sise stressed that the court, at the stage sf considering the applieetiszl Lifidﬁl' Order '? Exile 11{z;i} wetﬂd not Consider 5} ./if E1 any evidence er enter into disputed quesi:j0'n$ of fact, of law and in the event the jurisdiction of the C{1"L'ﬂ"ft is found to be barred by any law meaning subject matter thereof, Qtuly then, the 1:"«.)'-if V' rejeetien eft.I:1e plaint should be ;e1'1te1ftaii;ed; -- it is ccmtemied that even ifV£h_e plaizjtiﬁ is Uni. .e:t1tit1€i*d 'fz)IV'=.e some at' the reiiefs sought prayer eoi'i;1Hi';i, that is not a gound to reje-e_£"~%«t11e'_VA the can always seek adAVd~iti0n;ai._f'e11ei;__V0:§' ai£eIﬁa;1'§ﬁve relief as he thinks ﬁt ix'; i1':e:;1:*:i1je1Ji:1s*,aiiee'S.Qf* the-case. As such, the trial ijouzft. W545' rejecting the application ﬁled by the leaiﬁe.:1.....eeu:asei, in support cf the abmze _ =5:1j§;>::1'i'sei{}11::§,' '-placed. reliance $11 the decisiczns reperted .iI:_ §.iR SC 625, AIR 1999 Se 1123, AIR 2008 SC:

31?4, f3;1R 1997 Gaieutta 2202, AIR 1993 Patna 1, AIR A1525 se 1810, AIR 1991 Kmnataka 51, AIR 2002 SC %%1152, 5:1? 199: Kamataka 51, AIR 1926 Madras 20, AIR 1959 Mysare 12?, [LR 2(}C18 Iiarriiataka 4987' and AER 19% SC 194. {l e/:'f 12

14. In the light; of tile above mguments advancggi and the decisiuns cited by the Ieaxned COUI1S€}."'f(iﬁ'..b_T'*t1V'}€ parties, the only point for consideration is.*'€£rhe:tE:{3'rM triai caurt was justiﬁed in 1'ejecting__i:I1e_' a§;§1i:ea£ia:ij:'ned' ' by the peti$:i0I1ers und-::r Order 1 20*? :7-

15. Gawain facts, which ..§[;i€)t in dissfjute, fgave H) be mentiened at the oﬁtset §1'&;.tgj'~-.{1arI'0w tziown the discussion audio of C()I1t1'(}V€i'S}'.

The ggzaremiseigé %i:*;;T.%:;¢sp§ct% 1DVfxW.hi(_gfiV.'ﬁ1f:"iSLﬁt is ﬁled by the {i:é5.;:10li:éI'ie:d 1c:;;g%'back. in 0%:11c:r words, the p1;=E:u1'i$,es occupation of the plaintiff as 3, tenaﬁt. :10 Aisﬂger in existence. Therefore, the p1ﬁitiI'2g"back the plaintiﬁ" in pcxssessitm sf 'tf1jc"p£ié:::1;s§t:3_," wi1ich was in his occupatien, does. not arise. V11: 513:; not in corxtmversy betwéan the parti<::5 that plaintiﬁ' was a taenant under the flI'S{ defendant &E'}:dy'.'-'I193; 3. tsnant urmier ciefendaixtﬁ-Q and 3.

" "ié. The third fact in regarei to which there is no {§iSagI"B€:i1§{}.€I'1'f hetwmn the parties 15 that the first dafarzciant. had 5016. the premises in questien alczng with £4 lessee on to the possassion, after the expiry cf the 16336 in acco1'da11ce with the provisions Qf law, dares I3'§ii:»Tar1d cannot arise. The: Apex Cou1i't., in the sait"'§:.fL:a'$<§, :_ at parag1"aph--36, has considsred the v(§;A;i.i:j.'€I'f';i]lv'(ft',~. 'V D' between a tenant holding c§§rer:...4T:g1j.1é--TT» at szxiferaxxca and observed-.___ théig U1€I'T.": ' diff€2'f:I'1tiati4.3I1 between the %;1"d<§:§5rm§§1ed lease in possession and ﬁnding thaii the Mimaljis dispsssessed fmm the had that nu right :Lja11--_ aééfﬁe f8.VC)¥.1l' ef Mimanis.

19. If? sf Madhya Pmdesh V3. V3.

5-*r;had5i:::1 §~epg§rtec1 in Am 19?; 2:5? 65, dttalirxg . :g»z2«i.i:h s:>gVI:;1"*;.=:s;tj.c)r1 which involved nzaintainabilitjg of a H c1}éc;iaz%31tdi§: Sﬁiiﬁ for n<3n--c0mplia:r1ce of Section 412 $1' the 'V Sp:£?:Cizﬁ%J'VRé£iﬂf Act (old Act}, it was heid that in arrier to v. {E16 reﬁief cf de$iarati::>;1, the piaintiﬁ' must "é:§sbi;3"zblish that the piaiﬁtiff is, at the ﬁme af €116 suit, énﬁtieti £0 any iagal character or 3313; right ti) any p:'op<3:rt§; zsmd the ciefarldant has deniad or is interesteﬁ gf 25 in denying the c:hara<:te1' or the titie csf the plaintiff and thirdly, the (ieclaratien asked for is 3 deC1ar3Lti:) ﬁ.Tt1}at the plaintiﬁ' is emiitied ta: a legal Character in preperty, and that the plaintiff is not .pé.:s§ii:Li :)1'13 claim a further rxzlic"-2f than a bare C}_(':4Cii;if:§.ti£):'1V--.{3f--.i3i$V tjtlf:

and e:v<-:13 if these conclitiom; are f§;1}_fi'1}x=:d, tifzéé , diSCI'€*:ti0I1 to gar}: or not to a d€§c§.@_i'af<}rg%:§r<3iief. 2:). This 001111, in i:i1:§L"ca\§§x%: Q15 Vs, Jagcmnath, reported in AIR. 200?~"i{a,rf:1ata1;a also held that iii 3 e'3Ii?i'i1'('1i%i3;'£?1'¥"f?1'?;iSi>'I"i {if "{'iWi1€I'Ship and pennanent :i:1_iL1n{§ti'0i}:, rmf' has ta prove his titie to file propc§it§I,"b1;£_ zé;zs»::£'~i'iis p(}SS{'3SSi6I1 over the property " _ G1?! Gf V tf::i"'*;~:;t2it and when the plairltjff is not in ';;<:§'S:;-:=:?:§:~'~.ii:3;?i§'A':}f '£116 prapexty on the date 9f the suit, tha rcliéf Qf.'p}:2*:Ina.11€nt in}1.mctio:'1 is 1103?: an apprgpztiate corlséggieixtial reiief and further, if {"135 [}1aiﬂﬁﬁ is not in PQ_$f3essi0I: 01"} this data of {ha suit, €tV€;¥1 than, the suit £31' deciara¥::ioz1 and perxnanent injunctian is iiabia ten be dismissed as 1161: maintainabia.

'ﬁt/» ye» :2 1. As far as; the rulings referred to by 111$ i§::--1I'I1ec1 cczutlsei for tha rc:sp0:r:dent--plair1tjff are 21113301510118 which are I'€f€'}'I'€C1 to in <:(1:f1;i§irv.3ct§:$11._ vsifiz. V' S{3Cti0I1 6 of 1:116 Speciﬁc Rczlief Eigct éf Act), have 110 appiicatiell ta': .1126 ifmtant c$3..s§':: .i§e§:a1i;s€;; 3" ;

*<::amf1.11 I'::adiz1g 01" Sectiorl the fﬁieﬁef Act, 1963 makes it cleaj-;:_4_.f}f_at Wﬁert é person is dispessessed wiﬂiouﬁ ' i§ §i;r¥6vab1e property ot:h«::rWis<=: 1;i'§'¥'s"'£hat by suit he can ;Fh€:I'€fGI'(if, the Section i1I:;;iii%s :$__1.;£;<t5ad under Saction 6 :;3f the Speciﬁc ~.;ﬁ'}L¢'f'.3:::'i;\'T_i1;1i'?f1(1*'\§'3.1j)}(': pI'€.")p€I'L'§f in quoszgtian must E36 i:i:.€:xi:9t€;:1(:ir,% 311:3 it is 01215:" in such an eivemf: that t.hr~:: p€::»'3S{}I1 V " "x'?§.i§§QSS€SS€d can Sﬁiﬁk reemzery sf . §3::sse$'si1e:3I1';"--12$£her<:a.s the case on hand is flat the one §,,<§aeI'r;...:lti3¢' iaﬁtriiises in wizizch the plailrtiﬁ' was a teI1a11t. ﬁxjsiééi. $5 on the date: of tha suit but, by the very adﬁxiséiaﬁ made by the piaimtiff ii} E116 Suit itseif, the p1i~::;;:1iSés rm ionger exjstad as it had been damaiisixed by " daféudazzts and fI_.11°"t;h<31j, the petitioners hffifﬁill F ;

ptxrcrhased the property from the ﬁZ{'S€ defendant under a regstered $ai€ deed. Urxder such Circ1_3:I1sta11£;t':*3, the questisxl cf invakririg the pravisieﬁs of S€Cti{;}I_} i:'m:

Speciﬁc: Relief Act does not and Carma:

ail the decisions I'f:f€iITf';d inapplicable. 9' Z 9 . A' Z 22" As far as the ruling cése Igénzala Vs. K; Tﬂshwara sa, %VA112%»Ay¢' ;0_Q8 3:74, is co1'1ce.rned, What isA....rt%i{3va11t~».L v}?;hilé* 'cézansideﬁng the 3§)pliCtaifi(.-ill, ;fi;;§1:' 1€E::%s:é{t:i<31fi'*:9f 9 'piaiilt is thrt: averment made in {hr}: §1ai1':t V ':x%ifh0;1t-.,_i:}f1e,re being any aciciition er subtractién that V'~~--{:0u1't would not €:c::z1':sider any " _ cu-§,(iE-mg:::3 essaif eI1téé:f";;I'1::{) a disputed questgian cf fact or law. §';f1T_t:*3;t: *'::g.a;:;nt?:' ..¢_;$1*;..11a.rzd, even as per the plain: avexmcs-:;:1ts {E35 has cencedﬁd 1:h.at the pramisas in quztstigﬁ 110 longer existed and it has since been czenfiaziszaea and later the pctitiaxiers have purchased the _j;§:'ept:r¥:§: ff'0i{I1 the first defendant. '1'h.<-:ref0rc:, accepting the piaint avemmnts a3 it stanti, ever: mar}, the relief of de<:iarati{)1"1 01' C§€1iVﬁI'};? <3f possession after (iirr5:e"£iI1g the: .2» t,./ E8 :i6f€:I1da11t.s to 1'ec:on$truct the p1'emist:s, T.hC;€'(3f{}I'E'2, 0311110: be Ciiillclitivﬁd of in the vfzrjx admitted facts. _ :23. As far as the 021161' decisions 1'€f€r1f%g-ivii learned. caunsel for the respQ1'.1dei1t-j§ie;ufI.fi;$_f, are V' (:<;:nc<:r1'1r;::d, 11:3 facts and cir<:uIIi'stei:'1€:tés iiivﬁiivcti Lﬁeréin are not 11116 $116, Wi1i{:h Cari £0 tine"

facts cf the preserlt case.

24. In the light: of tb_c:: fQr«:é'gc§i11g"'-rézeiéscsils, I am of the View that 5i;s_jcfé:;i:ki€? is that {ha prt.=:mi_ses_ lock anti kay and Lilldﬁﬁi' his ct0I1t1*z)i'}'1.3xi%bee:'11 tié:;1{iﬁs§hE2d, at the most, the 0111}; relief wag}: the ;§1a;:nﬁ:::' be entitled ta seek will be tr; 0133111 .A far the. other reliefs <:§ai111en:i in {I36 prayer céizzgxfi,Ehezjéibre, are :10': naaintaixiabla if: iawi The pIa;ir:t,"---V§3;s'V 'inch? with the axisting rs-éliefs in the prayer H C:caE1;111:i, mruzot be held to be nzaintainable in View of the :~:gi'§.:»"§1*€%_id law Laid dawn by the Apex C':<:mI't and this W'{:t>L:r£; reI%rr€ti 1:23 earlier and, as 31:41:31, the 0:11}! re;r11¢::dj§;

avaiiabie £0 fhfi plajnﬁif is 'EC: present 3. plant seeking 03:17»: the relief 0? damages if at all he is entitied ihereta E» 9 ami, if sud': a raquest is made by prasenting "ftttsh suit, it_ is for the court to consider the accordance with law.

25. For the above reascns, this-.'_'_':'€§iriSio1i 7-giis alloweci and the i113pug1etipT«:;:fé;¢r 0f"£I;c~ "is set V L' aside. It is also ma<:1t;.c1ea;f.-t;*u§.§¢"-.. a¥#§<§vt:-0b2;ervatiuI1s shail not come in the £5}? that the plajritjff c};<_}Q$¢s_ try event, the' observatit;ri§§"»_~33iE:V§§%;_ 1V1-:ﬁ':m affect his case an 111e1'i1:s;* plajnt. in €j).S.No. 1590'??? tria} Court stands 1'€j€CE€d.

%%%%% RIDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court