P G Phalakshappa S/O Veerabhadrappa vs A K Ramanna S/O Nachappa on 21 August, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

P G Phalakshappa S/O Veerabhadrappa vs A K Ramanna S/O Nachappa on 21 August, 2008

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23.3' DAY OF AUGUST 
BEFORE ' ' V

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAwA.O.,RAHI'M: .

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO}:/26'9,.OE"-2003;-TC._'__VL, T'

BETWEEN :

ANOE:

  .A.i{§BOr~e_MANNA

P.G.PHALAKSHAPPA
S/O VEERABHAORAPPA I _ 
MAJOR, OCC: ACRICULTURIST;_- " A
R/O GOVINAKOVI  
HONNALITALUK   v 
OAVANAGARE-OISTREICT   '   APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S;VPRAKASH-,.VjTAV%OvVO'CATE).'

1.    
S/O NACHAPPA  '
__;AGE: 50 YEARS

' - " I-S/'O_"M,ATRAPPA, MAJOR

'" 3f"A.K;C§JIN1'NAPPA

 S/O' CHINNAPPA, MAJOR

ALE; ARE R/A BOVINAKOVI

  '~_HOBLI, HONNALI TALUK
' ~OAvANA<;ERE DISTRICT  RESPONOENTS

 (BY SRLCHANDRAIAH, AOVOCATE)



Ex)

This reguiar second appeai is fiied under Sect--ion 100
CPC against the judgement and decree dated 7.,2';12.O2
passed in R.A. No.280/02 on the fiie of the Civii"Ju'd'g--e"{uSr.
Dn.), Harihar, allowing the appeai and settiﬁgCa~si_de;_.the

judgment and decree dated 5.2.1994 p'a'ss,edw"'i-in[_"OSg_

No.428/89 on the file of the Munsiff and JMvFC,fjH,o'ia.na.!i. _ " 

This appeal coming on for fu:rth.er'4'--hea.ri'ng=t'h_is 2'

the court made the following :

This second aDi9:é:aI_'isV: by: defendant
against the jud.gn1ent,.in--vi5{iFf.»  on 2.12.2002
aiiowing '4  judgment in OS
 decreeing the suit as

prayed forAloll'-"the:'respo'iad_eats in this appeal.

_ _ 2. lHea'rd.t'he7--!_eai'ned counsei Sri.S.V.Prai<ash for the

 adpﬁelsgi-an't..i_Aand'S-r~i--;Chandraiah, learned counsel for the

 res p   i " 

  'Before I advert to the contentious issues raised by

 .'.oo_thVV"'sides, a brief reference to the factual matrix is

 riecessary.

air



La.)

4. The respondents herein, totaliy five of them, filed a

suit joining themseives in an action to pursue thencommon cause of action accrued in their favour to see;k"'fo'r_'a;:_decre_e to restrain the defendant (appeliant here_i-n)».frorn"*int«erfe_ring in any manner with their physical posse7ss'i'on an-di'eVnj._oy%:?nient"*- of the properties prescribedigingtheVszghe-dole.'vt'o}th.eLplaint. support of such a claim, belong to Scheduled Caste a community for whose benefitthe to aliot lands with a v.iew44 a regular source of aiivoication. In terms thereof, theytz each 20 guntas from out of Sy.i\Eo'.A8f3:_'oi¥ Honnaii taiuk. The ailotment of lands cwasVmadVeV'byf.'virtue of a darkhast in No.DAR.560/72- f'<3...V9.1972 passed by the Assistant Commissioner ._ Shimoga Sub-division, Shimoga. Carving out of 2C'--.':gun'tas each was out of Sy.Nos.79 and 80 and in ali several blocks were formed assigning numbers as biock i\'ios.1 to 35.

2 {%\M tr l S. The plaintiffs contend the 1" plaintiff l A.K.Rarnanna was allotted block No.19, 2"" Vpfifaintyiff Govindappa was allotted block No.16, '1 "I Bommanna was allotted block No.1'S,~~---».1'.X_':j"~..ipliaintifff'~« l Chinnappa was allotted block :=..l'lo.._2€i]a'i:d':l_S'"7"'p'i:a..i_.nt:£fff Ganeshappa was allotted bi'oc__l< No'.1_7"; In9.p'r'cs_Qf_Vof an assertion, they filed the orderg various dates pursuant to which "w'efre~also issued to them on 9.5.1977 ._by and put in possession, r_{ne§,é':'c'ointend that they took physicyaly on 23.11.1980 from the reveifi_ue__ since been cultivating the same to hold its physical possession.

grant so made was further confirmed by the officers in _:hfiAerai"c_hy of the revenue department vide their ._confir's'n'avt_i_on::"o'rder dated 19.3.1978 passed by the Deputy C'o~mm:issio:ner, Shimoga in Ll\£D(1)CR.737/78-79 dated as 2.34.1980.

6. Thus, it was their specific contention is they are in physicai possession and enjoyment of the lands were entitled to peaceful possession of it. They defendant who is appellant herein, ciai_m_e:d~-...tl::a:t purchased 4 acres of land in Sy,'l\io.'SOiyfrom',othe.r~.gr'a,n_tees L of the land, de«~marked_r and éfapplied rtvlfie: i¢\2eriu»ey authorities for appropriate in' records. On such an applicati'dn",:..the.iVAdreyenuen_na--uthoritiesxre«surveyed the area and a_ssigned_ which he had acquired Sy.i\io.80. It was alleged t€ii.,at--ii.4th,eV. the said order of the revenue_ rightwover the lands owned by the illegal object was attempting to cigyisgposisess his constant interference. They, "t_,herefe_r'e,4i's.ought injuctive relief. plaintiffs also brought on record that defendant ,, had" been issued notice for eviction from other portion of the if 'iarid in Sy.i\io.8O which was held by him illegally. 6

8. The defendant, aggrieved by the notice of eviction, was in writ action before this Court in WP No.425eE,§/-78 and obtained an ex--~parte order of stay of the said

9. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved _bv"s'11cfi1 V'a'n4_'i.nte§'i'rh,, order, to vacate stay, which p.|,eaf_:"w'as"de'ciihed;"t's..,,,*Tney, it therefore, preferred an appeai-..again'r-t_'theV before the Division Bench of this During the hearing of the writ:appehaii,Vthe'irtivai*-contentions of both sides ciaimi.ng::'p_osses'sions;rv'the disputed land was itw'asv'vno§t:'ciear|y evident from the who was in possession of Iand1V"a.nd.'_to' Division Bench of this Court in thet,saiti"tt«f5iitt.Véi3be.éI1§7No.12o7/79 directed the Assistant Coitnm.iss.ionerV"'(Revenue) of Shimoga District to conduct ' and submit factuai report as to who was in "p_ossevss'i'o%.} of which portion of the land. in obedience to the said direction, the Assistant 'Cornmissioner (Revenue) is said to have submitted a report 'i appending to it a detailed map de-marking the areas which 'him.

were found to be in possession of the appeilant herein and the area which was in possession of the_ Vr'..piaiVntiffs highlighting it with coiours green and blue.

11. The Division Bench of :tI'ii"S"COtJr",'E' a_cc:e'p»t_ed ithe 'said' i report as it evidenced prirna faci'1eo__theA'factii"sfn of nosTsesVsioVn of the respective parties in 'isespect ofx.thee"qiJestion. It therefore disposed-'of_ the.iw'rit'Vi_:apVp'e.a| petitiionivacating the ad--interirn order of stav petition.

12._ t_:he§':VVsaiiciﬁorder, Writ Petition No.12_8_5v;i/52$}--ufiiiedibyiwtitiiyie«iappeiiiant herein was aiso finally decided notice issued to the appeliant hereiniianiddviirectiing enquiry to be conducted by the conc'erned 'i'evenue' officer to determine the extent in the appeliant herein and then to take ._ Va"pVpAro'privateV.i;'st'eps for his eviction. Despite the said order hihavinigpbeen passed in WP No.12854/78 disposing of the it it writ petition finaliy, no action was taken by the concerned authorities.

{' 2 iyiﬂi "

E

13. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs flied the suit in question seeking for injunction as referred to above.

14. The suit was resisted by the defen:da,nt:inter'§'_alia__V contending that the plaintiffs ha'd""'suppressedfrn.ateri.a.~l facts? regarding the physical possession.of~A--AtV_he land's'~ari«d of the appeliant to seek reg:'u'iagrisahtio--ni' 'did not dispute the initiation-of theiv~w'riqt,?3:'C'ti"0n before this Court and the nature of orders"i'paSsedv.,l:)Vt}' disposing of the writ petitio.n«*::éas. However, he assertlvelv was bereft of material parti'c'u'i'a,~.g:tif: éitnwgutestion as the plaintiffs had riot of the land said to be in their respective-. possess-i_on~~-'ixand on the basis of what was d':i.;dQ=S:ed"l*bY tAHe'¥"I""-'"*§'i1V the plaint, it was impossible to identify V pass any appropriate order to protect their it 'a_.ii'otte_d ' po_ssession.

.. VLi_5.V He also questioned the maintainabiiity of the suit x_o"n.,the ground that five persons had joined together who Vfciaimed independent individual right in respect of distinct 9 identifiable lands and therefore, suit filed together was not maintainable. In short, he questioned joinder of causes of action by the plaintiffs. He also questioned the right of each plaintiff to join with other in pursuing the common course of action to seek a common decree of injunction agai'n.st.._h'i-m.

16. The triai court, consideringjithveif"imetheriavl' proposition in the pleadings ofiiithep a. following issues for consideration":

(i) Whether plaintiil'f.:vp:li~r_oves" that.V¢Atlley:..;'a"r'e' ijn lawful possessi0n___oi'».t_he_»suit"property"?

(ii) Whether' ._4_pl«-ainlfiiff ,p'rieyesi«.p thatl alleged _ _A T' 'V tn efendants?

vV°('iii')._ '\N.l'l'e7t"rll.er.._:.'i'pl:el.ntlffs are entitled for nction?

' " (iv) W.h_aVt'order or decree?

:"-v3.Q?..."T.:hVe-..plaintiffs in discharge of the onus of proof cast upoiliuilem on various issues, lead evidence. In all, 10 witnesses were examined by them including themseives and .,rel'l*ance was placed on Exs.P~1 to P-24. Whiie defendant 'Ealso paraded 4 witnesses and placed reliance on 18 documents.

i I0

18. Considering the ocular and documentari/._V_proof lead before the trial court, the learned judg_e_:"h'eldVi-.th:a.t_:_the plaintiffs had failed to establishwtheir_.iawftil..title._toVg:"th.e"7-__ properties in question and they:=.y:had..féaiied,.to'Vestal;-li,i'_S|%ﬁliatff"

they were in possession a»hd..__.enjo'y'r_nent question and thus, were notu:'e.xntitledto decree sought for. In the resuitanti--p.o'sition,;_gthhe~--.suni.t'was diisrriissed by the judgment dated 5.2:,.1--9§_éli. said judgement, the plaintiffs in:°reg.u'i'er_:ep:p'eél'before the 13* Appellate Courtﬂiri the 13' appellate court, all that'.:wa_s'.A trial court was re--iterated and seriesgrouhdswiwefrgel questioning the propriety of the trial "court in _i_gh'orin'g the material evidence on record and «particutierly.__discarding the directions issued by this Court in They also highlighted the failure of ie"ame'd' trial judge in noticing the fact that the defendant i. had not set up in himseif any legal right in respect of the "'._VVi'and in question but was pleading right to be in possession as unauthorised occupant.

5?' if E}

19. The defendant also canvassed the same grounds as it was done by him in his written statement before the trial court and as he was successful in the tr'ia'i'»i.court, supported the judgment impugned.

20. The learned 1" appellate judge.,:rea|Visli:ng_ was the final court of facts, refappérliseldlggthe'--.:e'\;eid..enceTon7.. record and gave logical Vconc|us'i'o_n'thatV»'a~partﬁ evidence lead by the '.V':def'endant, the observation made of thisvycou rt in WA E\io.1207/79 and alsothegfienalorgde'r~:Vi.nl~L.l}\ifln.'---No.12854/78 was clear:_in--.its.ekpr-e_s'silonjjilat plaintiffs were in possession of the lands invvqluestioiiand were therefore entitled to legal p,rr;{tect~ion of their possession till the defendant succeeds in i 1'e--.s_tVab»l'ishi--nlg*~--profential or a better title to the property in 'Learned appellate judge therefore allowed the ap'pea"l:,Jset aside the impugned judgment of the trial court " and decreed the suit. Assailing it, the defendant is now in second appeal.

;:\i :

'::;'?.

W 2.1. At the time of admission, the appeal has been admitted by this Court to consider the following Jquiestions of law:

(i) Whether the findings of thera:'éim5eilla~te court on the question enjoyment of the perverse and contrary to .tiae.VVeiy:id;en'ce on record to call __4fio'r.,:'iriterfe'ren_cVe of this Court? _

(ii) What is theeffect:'Vof..:_th.e:~.VappeaI on the de:at.h whose LRs record after " V' of law framed, it is noticed that theyhapvpellainty"-~.':_"..defendant, apart from urging the ground'; urged---»i.n____thye courts beiow, has also questioned the » ;'im_pu..graed..ijud_gment of the appellate judge on two grounds:

the appeliant No.2 died during trial of the suit and hence, the action against him had abated.

(ii) That the plaintiff No.5 died after passing of the judgment by the trial court before the appeal was filed and hence, the la/air E5 appellants even though the decree against him has become final.

28. In the case of 'MARINAYAKA v. .i3','i:D'l'?:UcDwDi'§\:..yV AND omens' reported in ILR 2oo3n-matte mediatereaming Single Judge of this Court dulVI'iiri'g.bVV"tl]ge pendency of the appeal befo"r:e:"'the oneof the appellant died. 'Since aVp'p'epii'jits'e!.f'was'p'res'ented by the appellants on common of one of the appellant uyvof the appeal and power of with the appeal in such circu:"nst'a~p.Ci<:i.s if . E my concern seriously to the 9roundsl'SQu.{9¢\é5.y:4V if The'"'de_c_isions referred to above, no doubt lay ' .:.ld"owAri._a'=ciear--._principle governing the proposition regarding "a.b'a«tenﬁeVnt Voflcause of action and the non--entétlement of the sulmivlinglappellants to pursue the appeal but the principles soagoverning laid down by the apex court is on a different Vfset of facts and circumstances. The test to be applied is J' 2'

1.' ,7?

1 'V' 16 whether the cause of action survives where the decree passed by the triai court was divisible and had given entitlement to other surviving appellants in appeal.T'aCtion.

31. The provision of Order 22 Rule .i"'r;..'its expression. It makes it clear that abatem~.en't:.A_1'bv4 pia'riyls'=__ death if right to sue survives,:;.;the:"dea't_h'iof.:_.:a--.pia'i'nVtiff~ 0.1% defendant shall not causepslthe sui-.t.:to' abate.i'f"ri"gh't.itoV'sue survives. Therefore, we h'a'v:e"to' s.eé~.Cifitactiilvvhether the right to sue survive':xS~.._4,A' ciasegirespondents herein were five in while the trial continu'edi.V.i:ri:, thVe?:t'ria'i*court,'"bLrt'"they died during the appeal actiovn, I undoubtedly survived and are survivinxg.-«.,%A'i! in/'e'~hiad filed a suit on a specific plea that e:a'3ch;»_..iAV:0npe \Aias'v----~-allotted and assigned a distinct and V iiid'enti--fi_alb,4l'eQseparate portion of the property to an extent of it r?i'Odéguntasi__Formed out of Sy.l\lo.80. They had also described the~~dei:alIs of the allotment and the number assigned to the portion aiiotted to them. The description in the schedule to the plaint shows that each of the plaintiff had been allotted lands which bears distinct and separate block nurnber. 17 Undoubtedly, they are carved out of Sy.l\io.8O but the allotment is individual of a separate portion in thei.r:'i'a_vour. They had joined in filing the suit contending were entitled to lawful possessionwby virtueof~th'e::ai--|Aotn9ient'uA order and that the defendant wasi_-unynecessafr-ily"h-a_rasising""

them by his interferenceﬁ'-..fifhefVfil,i'n'g manner was not questioned:b'y',Vthe defenfdaﬂznt after he was served with summon.s.':"a_nci:Lin]hi'sw._'wr'i'tten statement. The provisions of Order:i-~n_e:ed's-V_th'erefo;rfe,§'examination. The provision that ali persons may be rpilafintiff where any right to relief in out of, the same act or transaction or transactions is alleged to exist in suc"n.._p"e'rsors, whether jointly, severally or in the «.a'lternative,__and if such persons brought separate suits, any ._ co_rnmo"r_i..,_qu.fe-stion of law or fact would arise. Therefore, the fa'ctsv--.oi'e'aided by the plaintiff are directly covered by Rule 1 ii of Order 1 and hence the plaintiffs were right in joining each '.o't'n:er in instituting one suit as the cause of action shown in "the Suit is arising out of the same act alieged against the air not abate the whoie of the appeal. In our view, the decree is divisibie being a decree in favogur..of several reversioners against several 3 donees having specified shares in properties. We are not satisfied reas--on5.u given for the inordinate years and, therefore, the aA:p.peal_i.stanfo'_--s.A'a»bated"inV"~ respect of propertiesi._V:fg"i.ven Ato.__the1»v-decea's~er;i - Makan Singh under the dated:§.9.70. From the said 1'obs_éVr~}ati'p.h, that the test to be applied In the instant case, of the plaintiffs having succeed~§\.gi,'.A:is.'e'n::fiitletj--'.V,t't;V'pro't'e'ctiVon of his lawfui possession by v'i"r_tu'e:_ of injunction granted in their favour agaginstiiiitite Therefore, the death of appellant 5 be'f'ore-«t'he 15* appellate court does not have the V.=Ve'ffec't.,:"ofW~a:nn.ulling dissipating or rendering the decree .' un'enfoérce'ab:ie. Therefore, the submission of the appellants' counsiegi that the judgment passed by the appellate court is A_vi"ti«.ated as abatement against appeilant E\los.2 and 5 is Vigabated the entire appeal. Consequently, the benefit of the appellate court's order inures only to the benefit of the "J 7%.?

K 20 surviving appellants i.e. who are respondents in this appeal viz. plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 4 only. This shall giveV.qu'i'trous to the legal issues so raised and accordingly,;'I'*a'n~s'wer."the question of law on aspect in favour r*espor'udénts""..__ partiy and in favour of the a;)_pe|lantjr above. But a specific o.bse__rvatio_n"'is death of appellant Nos.2 5, the sue had survived on the respo._n':den'~fs thevl are entitled to the fruits of the decree._,:'_ if V l '

33.§the appellate Judge, has, apart"f'r'oﬁl'con:s*i§:FJ'eri"n.dV'----:t'helevidence on record, referred to the Bench in WA No.1207/79 and thellfénavl :§r7;ilér1:r,,"art-rwp No.12854/78. For clarity, it is a':p'ipro_priate to're,x.tract the said observation, which is as ' now add that land in possession of 'iresplondent Nos.3 and 7 having no integral "communication with the land supportly in possession of the petitioner, shall not be affected by this order. "the respondents 3 to 7 <;7?2V 30 will continue in possession of iand which is in their possession."

34. Considering the said observation_.,o;f finai expression with regard to _the..f,acti.1rn'v"ofi.--pos'se'ssionin respect of lands by the respective in such a conclusion arrived 'a.t'"i:.y the"ie_arned-_appewliiatje judge for the foliowing reasons:

The plaintiffs -'s:erio'§us'--V-~endeavour placed reliance on;'thej;grant-_ to them foliowed by the to P-5, the survey sketzchfatfp to P-10, grant certificates at grant order at Ex.P~18 as aiso the--.,mutat'ed sketch after re--survey at Ex.P--23. 'These .' if A d'o.cun'ien'tsg bearvautestimony to the fact that the authorities make such grant had exercised the ju,risdv_i.cti'_o£nAfvesting in them to make that aiiotment, the A validitﬁof which was not questioned by the appeiiant herein *o_r_ianyone concerned. Therefore, those documents having _;§not been questioned, are therefore binding on those to ii?"

1' «.pv:étitio'.n'.

41.4}.

whom it wouid apply. In the instant case, it certainiy applies to the appeliant herein as he has set up a claim in respect of the said land on the basis that he was in uninterrupted physicai possession and enjoyment and thus became entitled to regularise his occupation. Seco.n'diy,,_ it is noticed that the same issue has raised in grounds in support thereof which .we_re ic_i'ent'i'<:a.i.viiere..Vras-iysed _ before this Court in writ action in VV[_Pitio.128~S}4,«'?V8:"ianidi./_WA i\lo.1207/79. This Court has__v'g~i,yen due the rival' contentions and on the basis_.offfacwtiuai re'po.r_t received from the Assistant Commissioner,v_aii'nt'. reeertiled a finding that the appevi|an_t.AaA'n5d;as5a|so:'th_e respondents - plaintiffs were in possessioniof and identifiable portions of lan;d"a_s evidenced from the sketch produced in that writ 35';7fr"'clsi' re--assurance, I had summoned the records of we i\ivo;«;]_2V854/78 and WA i\lo.12G7/79. The reference made x_in"'the orders passed in those proceedings by the Division v';Bench and the Single Bench of this Court to the sketch has been re-read by me. I am satisfied with the observation of this Court which was sought to be contended it was not binding on the appellant, is binding as the said 'o..bse:r*i(ation has been made after examining the sketch __C>~n____'r~;;_3- perusal of the sketch also, I am satisfied't'iiat:*th'e::As,si5,t'a'nt'*7-_ Commissioner has forwarded the sa~idf5mCa.pl ~.aiongfw__it'la;Vithe report to this Court in obe'die_.nzce to, the him to submit factual report,'-V'.,:"fiie_re'is delineates within specific boundaries'. coloured in green to be in possesr.;.ion of 'and?,:'::".se'parate delineated portion in. in blue to be in poss¢$5..iCl'n»._€pfV1'.gh'eVﬂ' ifherefore, the operative portion of petition that the appellant is entitiedﬂto _ be = till his lawfui eviction p.o.i§session.V" virtue of the said order, he can claim » the iand said to be in possession by the C' '-'pl-ainVtiffus_';,--._ the other hand, the operative portion of the o'.r'der"'V.pr'o"tVects the possessionary right of the piaintiffs in 2 C' 'respect of the areas shown to be their possession, which in Atgcomparison is found to be as mentioned in the suit C schedule.

no ,«>m»

36. Thus, I am constrained to decline accepting the contention of the appellant counsel that stili there--"is scope for enquiry as to which portion is in occupa.t.i_onVV"otywhich party.

37. Incidentally it needs';tolbevrn_enti.o,nled.'that the it appellant is not ciaiming any leg:aiE..ri'ght in.,'r'es'p'ect'V in question. He is claimin'g::possessionary son the basis that he is an un4a~uthQrVi.s:e'Vd'Vi.:oﬁléili-p,ant 'and he is entitled to regularisation as ﬂumile.§,/.[*".Fi'r'f.;vision of section 94(a) of the 'i{ja_iEi1ate:2__ka; Act which provision was:'i..ncorporated:'by"v_i:rtu.e'of Act No.22 of 1976 and again insertedbyl Act' w.e.f. 20.3.1991. Therefore, asioh the date. he was in writ action before this Court, this » :v'b.ene_f:it«.wa,is~-.not available to him. Likewise, when the suit ti'leE:i_vi,--i.n'€19.89, he was stiil in the same position and was not entitlement to seek relief as provided under the " arnenvded and inserted provision of Section 94(a) of the 'AA'-Zkairnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The order passed in H the writ petitions protected his possession tili detail enquiry gig» was held by the competent authority i.e. Tahsiidar to decide to what extent he was in unauthorised occupatiyoripaind to take appropriate action to vacate him.

38. Therefore, there is nQ'"direc.tio'_n reguiarise his occupation perhaps~.__b:e-ca'use'"a.s this amended provision wa's.._:n'ot avaiiab--!.epook of statute. The subsequenti""eve;ntfHi.s the"*~on~'e which is highlighted before me to contend that inaction authorities was not against he did not pursue enquiry to be vvouid have resuited in his benefit." no iaches. He wouid further contend i"'cha't.gb:yAvirttie of the amended provision, he i'ru.nmed.iat.eiy a'p'p'E*i*ed' for reguiarisation and is stiii awaiting from the Government. He was in the "u4n+auth.o'rised occupation. If that is true he has to seek right of possession. Therefore, it was up to him to pursue iegai if r _c'o'urse avaiiabie to get his right to have a iegaiiy recognised occupation. The position stands same as on today. There is no order passed by the Government granting him any 77 .9» location or granted him relief afresh. Therefore, the mere say of the appellant that he is entitled to his possession can hardly be accepted as a legally tenable grou

39. I decline to accept it. Eu'rtlierr'riore.,"i¢s that ; he is himself not sure of the extent of land in_h~i.<.; as was noticed by this' while'--d:is_:po~sVi"n'g' of WP' No.128S4/78. The Vap.pel|a.rit" chﬂallenged the map referred to above nor by this Court in WP No.12854/7:8; 'iiitjhasigob}riousl.i/"rlejacheil finality. ujtidge has taken each of these co_n.teVn't'ions"intoaccourat, though of course has dealt it differenitlj/.~i Yet the co'nclu.sion given by it that the plaintiffs h"a_ti "es.tab|is"hed'their case to be entitled to legal protection irijuprir.tt'i*»t_e order is well balanced on correct appraisal of ._ Vffa_cts"'an_dV___ciV.r'curnstances of the case and I therefore, find no re"aso.h.t'o""'interfere with it. The question of law framed as in :a.uest'i'on No.1 so relates mere to facts and then on 'substantial question of law. Yet, in order to examine 'T whether the 15' appellate court has exercised its jurisdiction

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court