Karnataka High Court
Venkataramanappa S/O Nallappa vs Sadappa S/O Muniyappa @ Nutuve ... on 12 January, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
I
{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
I)A'£'EI) THIS THE 12'?" DAY OF JANUARY, 1
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAM .
WRXT PETITION No. 39524__Q.F__2G1_--(i{(}1§?if§vf§i'§I2)' BETWEEN: V " A V 'V 3 'JEN KATARA?v'iANAPPA S/O. NALLAPPA.
AGE 72 YEARS.
2 SUBBAIAH V __ 5 _ s/o.soNNEI>A1,IAPm._ 1, ;
AGE 57 YEARS. T ' 3 vENKA'r_Ap:2_ _, ~ ~ S/O.1\/IU_NIY;?T&.PPA.V _ ' AGE V 4 KRIS}§i\EAI5I3.?Sf'-~ ~-- S/'O. VENKA'I}\1f"PA' --~ .__ " ~ AGE~~57*YEA'R_s_, »-- '
AI,L,.;xRE:L..R/(3. £3YRAT}iNAI--1AI,I.I ..... I>I«:'rmoN£:Rs ' ri3v R.<;v_:A»1A1;«:3;5*;$aA. ADV) " A.?§§'1'3__;« V 1 s.--é;Ij;az=r'§>A 5/ MUNIYA.}'F~'A :\:a§mv1<:
NEUNIYAPPA, i\z1AJ()R, v1+:NKA'1'£«:s£»-Lawim S/(73. MUNEYAI-'PA NU'i'E,IVE E\IT[.§N1YAPPA. 3\/{Ag} O R. §3C3'Ff-i. ARES R/ O. F3YRE--'{§'}'"I.?\EA}--IALLI §'\!EAIJ;.§ R 'E}'\.I.,[_,I K." , , , REE3PC)NI.3 I%ZI§F'1'S T§:iIS \5v"RE'I' PETI'l'ION IS FII.,E£3D UNDER AR'1'ECET.ES 226 ANI} 22?' OF 'I'H}":I CONS'I'E'I'U'1'ION OF INDIA PRAYINCE TO SET }'..SIDE 'I'I""IEi -JUD(}MEN'I' DATEI) 33,6310 IN M..A.N0.7] ,/2003 ON "IfFiE FILE OF THE A§)DL,CIVIE., JUDGE: {SRDVN} AT §<c7a1;;a.VR"*«.VBy {H3*E'iOI,.§JEN(} C)RE3¥:IR DATED 29. 2 1.2003 E-"'ASE3E£-I) I;\?fi';;-'s N0. 192/2003 ANN?K & E-'; AND EITCI, THIS r>I::"1'1*1"1<}1\:?¢»;« C',()MIN(} ore FOR f3E£jEL.'}1£'I-3.15391Ni} "1f}~«.a:5 DAY. 'I'I"I§<3 COURT E\f§AI)E '1'§'iI:§ FC)EJLO"¥,\7}NC?;' « "
ORDER T "
The defendantts in th€ 'V order cit. 29.1 1.2003 ~._Qf tszié J'1;1VcigéVV (Jr.I)n), Malur ailowing 89 Ruies 1 and 2 CPC thg: before the 11 Add1.c1vi1vJgjagé'%('.'51'_jg5i%i;i},'"1<:5i1a£;'v»§xxr1§ich when dismissed by c)rci:'%s;r d_t--. 'l:a;qv...ge:--s£1}t<3ci in this peti1::ion.
2. "1'31__dispi;£t.21ab 1'y»- entries in respect of the suit.§$;c§11edu1€V"prf§1é;er';y being agricultural lands stood in p1e1ir1t.iffs from the year 1975 through to patta book issued by the revenue j a'z1t:h0u1*iIi',i¢es' in respect. of the said properties stand in the ,.fl.1i22'm.§és of the piaimiffs. In a.ddii:i0n the emries in the ' pah_2m_is ciisclcxse that the piaimiffs are Cultivators .» growi11g ragi and gaédciy on the said Eand. In the Eighgi of ;
3% 'H DJ the reveriue records. the courts below eorleurreritly heid that a p'{'f3S'L1i'I1pi'.i.Oi"l under Section 133 of the I,.21m'i Reveime Act is in favour of the plaintiffs"t}i§3ugE1Tt~ rebuttabie by the defendants. Ha.v.in_g :~e'g;};e;i'k:i*~et'§3 the_Vf;1ei;V that the plaintiffs made out 21"':.pr:é'fn2'i fétcie ..ezase'i_i"*:a_£1id:
records established posses.s_i"o1f_1 of" _vSu_it""..;Sehetiu1e"
property and the balance Of$,COVI'f-1;$.*'€'I:l3;.€_'?I3(3€ favour of the piaintifis, ezatitliange'therittivo te~£n1§o'rary injunction, the trial court ..wéis.e'o:1flrn1ed by the appeiiate e.'o"u'f_t..V V"
__ HéiVvi"o.g§_"hearfii-..._ti3ef learned Counsei for the petitioners and "eXai':1(ii:1e'tif:he orders impugned, I find no leggiflgrouzid tLo.._iVi"1Vteri"ere with the orders. T he reasons, ,findingsw;1n;f1"~r:onelusions arrived at by the courts below "ca? 'mot with.
i" V. re}eet.ecv{.
P'etit1'o11 being devoid of merit. is 21(.:coI'di21g;1y