Sri B Hanumaiah S/O Late B. ... vs Archbishop Of Bangalore on 13 January, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B Hanumaiah S/O Late B. ... vs Archbishop Of Bangalore on 13 January, 2010

IN THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE :3" DAY OF .iANuAey 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MF%.JUSTi'CE~«H.A_Ei'.iALL_ePVF"A_ it  

eEA.No.T72)2o0s '

BETWEEN:

Sri.B.Hanumaiah,  _ ._ 
Si'o.Late B.Hanumanthapp;a,  V
Aged about 66 years,   *
Proprietor Mi_i.ien.i_u'm E§7igineei*s,'- _  Ti

6"' Floor, St_,P,eatr;'oks Comr:ierci__a£ jucornpiiex,

15, Brigadie  e  _  _
Bangaloeree    "  .../Appellant

(By ski.A..ee;i%iéiixito.i§iane,'Advocate)
AND: i' 4   V N H

Arcijbiishop ofV"BaVngaioei'e,

  T;:puI'ar;_Heeaid of Archd'i'ocese of Bangalore,
, Rep. by Frtdayanathan,

Pree'seTTt«.pa»vri's.h priest of St.Patrici<s

 .C_3'iiurch" P'a..rI_sh;'House,

S't:_.F'atrici.<st'lC_,nurch Compound,
Museum Roadg

 Bangai_o:r':e~ 560 025. ,..F~tespondent

 Siri.Vasanth.V.Fernandes, Advocate)

This R.F.A, is filed under section 96 WW order XLE of

 "CF30, against the judgement and decree dated 31.03.2009

i



passed in O.S.No.4227/2007 on the file of the XVII Additional
City Civil Judge, Bangalore; dismissing the suit for vperntanent
injunction. -4   

This RFA coming for admission this 

made the following:-

Juoemgﬂxf'

'TNs appeal by the pﬁahnﬁfis~dnechnl"agamstthe'

judgment and decree ;----dzatedg..3'i'.{l3;2C'G9, pass'ed"oy the XVII
Adamonaicnychm:Judgegean§amngrn<isim;422z2oo7
2.  lt:ijne'__.iir.tpug:neVd  decree, the Trial
Cour:hastnsnﬁggedtnegun<ﬁtheinamnﬁ_
 it .  the appeJIant--pIaintitt has filed

this appeal: 

   .:":'i.n_brief, the facts are; The appellant wplaintiff filed

 Su'ii't.Vin"(3t:'Sv...Nogzi'é27/2007 for permanent injunction. The case

of the "---appeVIlant--plaintiff is that he is the tenant under the

 reisponvdiient and the respondent threatened him to vacate the

Zpreniwiises and the respondent did not open the door when the mtelephone repairers came to the suit schedule property and the respondent is giving trouble by chaining the car and the lift is not repaired though it is in bad condition and the .rje.sp_o_nd_ent prevents the appellant from using water andotherig"fa"c§tifi'e«s;., Therefore, the appellant has prayed..fo.r_pertn.a'n'ent;infunotion,

5. The respondent_i._e., thedefendgamlfiled statement contending that the'v"i'r'eT;S'po_ndeVn't-.hVasV':redfuested the appellant to vacate has not prevented anybody ""t:tf'e'»~:'..'t,gef'ephohe and the appellant is averments made in the plaint statements. Therefore, the respondent has'I_er.a4yed"fo:r'd.is'm'issal of the suit. _ 'V6. .Trt.alA'Court has framed the following issues:--

Wihether tine "" "plaintiff proves that the defendant _ i~ntVerfVelred----.with the possession and enjoyment of the suit s'ch'evd_u'i'e"property and attempted to dispossess without due process of law'?

if Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction sought for'?

What Order or Decree?

7. The Trial Court has answered issue the negative and consequently, has dismissed the s_u'it;'«'..j_~

8. Aggrieved by that. the 'appellafit--pvlair"ivt'ii*xhas.» filled this appeal.

9. The learned couns'e~i.';for.VVthe"appellantvicontended that the Trial Court washot jLi_stiffiVeud"~i.nfdismissing the suit. He also submitted that the.VIri_a'i. Court_ to consider the evidence on frecfaerd in"pro.per _'pe;rspect'i\'}e and therefore, the iinpugned j~udgme'riVt"and~decreelvcavnnot be sustained in law.

As "against:ilit-hiiis, the tearned counsel for the respolndent submittec that, the Trial Court on proper 'co,nsideration~.of the material on record has rightly dismissed ~th"e_suit"éVa_vn_d"lith'erefore, the impugned gudgment and decree does. not "call for interference. He also submitted that the 'respondent has never interfered with the possession of the Zagpplellant and therefore, the impugned gudgment and decree does not call for interference.

11. l have carefully considered the submissVio'ns'in_ade by the learned counsel for the parties.

12. The point that arises"'fo'r~«njly'._coinside_rati'on i Whether the impugned j'udgmerit_' decree. =ca:'ils'*~.iVfo~.r,y interference .7

13. lt is relevanttiaynojte,:.:_eth.é.,3,'§;ittA:'eis.y'for injunction. The Trial Court taking into Zcvovnisijderatiéon".t.t1_at.":'t;.§thibits P3 and P7 show that in accordance with law to get has not interfered with the poissiesszfivoinQeft.r_hs._,.§.p,jellant and the appellant has filed suit imag'ina'ry has dismissed the suit. E do rtoteytjend any er'ro../cor illegality in the findings recorded by the Coitiirte.-_VAdn1ittedly the appellant is a tenant. The learned i"'coéj'nVseVl"fo'r_v»t.he{respondent submits that the tenancy has been terrn"inat'ed." if the respondent tries to dispossess the appetiant if'ﬂr.:forci.b&ly,then, the appellant can take action in accordance with

-- the findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on evidence. Exhibits P3 and P7 show that the respondent has %/ (3 requested the appellant io vacate the premises and legal action will be taken to recover possession. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. $4. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

i\/iisc.Cvl.No.14388/2009 c;o'és"- 'not .; éi.:.%v1:v:e-7= for consideration and accordingly' it is di'sn5i'i'ssed_ - * V [358

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Sri B Hanumaiah S/O Late B. ... vs Archbishop Of Bangalore on 13 January, 2010