Karnataka High Court
Sri V Narashimhaiah vs Munivenkatappa on 26 August, 2011
Author: B.Manohar
Bench: B.Manohar
ds JAN N. Al DANA AM, ALL iZ V ILL AG Ee
HOLUR HOBL I
SOLAR TALUK
| MUNIVENKATAPPA. |
AGED AROUT 4 6 YEARS
ae ATE ¥ ENT Ky AT. ARAMAPPA
A
"31 YEARS
RAYANAPPA
(BY M.V.SESHACHALA, ADV. FOR C/R} AND R
eee
-_---- EER ee eee
rlowever, the defernc
on
_
to
mand
ey
ay
oo
i
ont
fo
patnway
fo above,
or interest over the
from East te-West.
1
SIEMETES In
SF ee bes :
7 a ee mye ay tee eg te Le
ed the present suit with the above prayer
ee
: : Ton RITE GLP pan bes L. mies ot {
eo HE pursuance to the notice issued by the Trial
Willen statem
mace in the has
jas FiO
i
©
ee EEL UR cr aesneyemunemnmmten nce
effort for formation of north "West corner rond as claimed
py him and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4 On the basis of the pleadings of the part:
Trial Court framed the followin PF ISSues:
Bled
i. Whether the plaintiff preves that, He is
in lawful possession' and-uenjoyment of
the suit schedule property | road)?
: gy
Does the plaintiff proves the interference
NO
of the défend ANTS?
3, Whatarder'or decree?
~ Rimselr® as. P.W.i and got exarnined one witness AS
Or. the-oather hand, the Power of attorney holder of
"defendant No.) was examined as DAW.1 and exaiTined
fwo-more witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and got
fmarked documents Exs. D1 to EX DS,
RIREPRUURRMethoteeutrernnennenaeeccine se ne
SRR UA AERA RRR,
evidence prod
parties and appreciating oral and documentary evidence
Nos. and 2 in the affirmative and consequently, DYtS
restraining the
using of road by
land bearing ard other properties.
passed the juidement.and decree,
eved 'by the same. the
~
inter alia contending that the
pudsment cand decree passed by the court below
JO ES
7
EY
arguments addressed by the
that there is no existence OF road, further. 2}
eee ERE cae reese eyeres ed lan bbe eeee ee ge FERRERS Jes Cee a eheled
ExX.PI2 are prepared in the vear 1999 jn collsstors. itp
d
the plaintiff, after the land has been granted inydavetir of
the defendants and the auth ILIES care. not: the
- ---- Muiphorities ta ieee fhcs alent . gba ye rl ge opt edo
Competent Authorities to ISSLLC he sete SHONING cae.
existence of road towards. Ey st too
When the village maip. & learly discloses that there is no
'st-to the property
existence of the road from Fast te \
of the plainuff. the entire -made by the Trial
SOUg ht for setting aside the
Court is contrary te
Same.
&. The "Appellate Court after considering the
iramed the
TOUOW Mg. ports for its co nsideration:
I. Whether the suit for bare injunction is
maintamab!
declaration
suit schedule road & path way?
2. Whet is
- ai Page end
DOUCHE O]
aa
Se ey
Oo" SriG.Panireddy. learned counse| appearing for the
ese
3. Whether the plaintiff proves Cause. &
a
dee!
y
i
Eons
Senet
ot
Lower Appellate Court after consid ering the
arguments addressed by thé parties and. ré-appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
parties, held-points NOt LG. ir, the negative and as per
3-12-2005 allowed the
judgement -ancd deerceo,
appeal-and set 'asideé.the judement and decree dated
passed by the Lower Apnellat
WeCree passed oy the Lower Appellate
ee
Se
ie
Uae
146. im the. case of IMAMSAB M ALIBSAIS HALLIKER|
maintainable without seeking for amy other
fe tee » ae a -
CLOUPrl 18 contrary to
ed py gee et pe a an or
CViIdeMce precuced by
that there is
ich road
oy. No.40 which runs from East fe. West.
dotted line discloses that itis the pathw
pen
io
pote!
ait
dotted line passes in Sv.No40 frore North. to Seuth
Which leads to VELlOUs
corner of the said read, there js. a Single dotted line.
which toucheS-the property of
Appellate Court withoik consid
Mmeatrer reversed the Uirdinge recorded by the Trial Court
and dismissed the suis, which is contrary to law. He
auso.relied upor the judgment reported in LOO] (1) KLU
eb
cA
bed
COMTeENGeG: EPLERE tne SLIEL for bear PyuUTiction pS
mence, sought for setting Aside ihe
Juagment and decree passed by the Lower A ope
C cornerof
ae
..
| ae PRE . yee Soe lp os ele y has acmitted that Pl, On tre other hand. SriM.V Seshachaia learned counsel appearing for support of the judgement and Appellate Court and contended" tat Ex.Plb3 ie) the original village map, does not disclose the existence ap é corner of Sv.No.4Q. -Ex.P.9 and Ex P.12 are prepared by the Revenue Officials in collusion with. the plaintiff in the vear 1996.99 and me value can't learned counsel reliéad. upon the judgment reported C.D.d. 2608 603 in. the case of ANATHULA SUDHAKAR v/s P.BUC OTHERS cantended that when there is a dispute arcing title of the property, the suit for bear SGApUNCcHON Is maintainable and they have to seek for in the instant case. the plaintiff himself 4 re has gol alternative land. hence he for any reliel and souent for dismissal of single dotted fine from East.to West-and Morth-West se LASS TON BS which runs ine shows the direction on East West Rod to:
Sy.No.65, Ex.P6 and Ex.P.7 aré the tax, pa id receipts. mX.P.S to Es.Poi) are the R rC extracts, Ex-P. 12 iS. the copy of the sketch of Sy No. 4G prepared by the Taluka surveyor, Kolar on ©.7-1599>showineg the existence of mie from othe main read to Sy.No.65. Ex-P.13 is the village map: showing formation of Sy.Nos.62; 63, 64 and OO ane if does mot disclose the pathway "frem the Government Road leadin s to af if L <n Need rt Ma?
a in the cross-examination, he admitted thar in there ig ne mentioning about the ae tv on the western side of his land. He further granting wand im oy.No.40 to various persons. He has North bears Payal af ged na ie mami ayeP ul Ly. behr gad Cail Ped PSP ibiei Pri Dy! PoaC, Lt at 4 Narvanappa and South by: the land af the Trial Court. | find that there is no irre passed by the Panchayath supperting sketch al Ex.P.12. Im the. a@bsence of the same, the contention of the plaintiff' ree: existéhce of the Lona' oad cannot be accepted. "The Lower Appellate Court ALTO. TA ia OYfal ard documentary € widence came to thesdefinite conclusion that no decument has been produced by his. favour! On considering all these documents, the 4 e 5 Lower Appellate Court reversed the finding recorded by pin the findings of the Appellate Court in setting aside the judgement and decree | by : Po. er as iba question plainiil has file