Sri Balagangaiah S/O Linganna vs Sri H C Rajashekaraiah on 7 November, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Balagangaiah S/O Linganna vs Sri H C Rajashekaraiah on 7 November, 2008

Bench: V.Jagannathan

 V'  ..Baf:Lga7:}c§re D'1st:r£ct.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 
Dated the 7"' day of November 2008  »V   

;BEFORE: _x_ _ 
mg: H{)N'BLE3 MRJUSTICE : V.'}AGA.!\iNATfif§§J  
REGULAR SECOND APPE.IXI}mNo'.«34~«23-;f .2005,   

BETW EB N :

Sri Balagaﬂgaiah, 
S/0 Linganna, Aged 84 yeam,  '
R/a Doddahejjaji, .    _
Doddabelavangala Habii,  _   g
Evodciaballapura Taluk,   "
Baﬁgalore Rural .f.)is1.:ric.t:' " - . 

,    _, ...Appc:I}ant

Sn" H.C';.Ra}ase}:h3aIfé'i.iah,._.  

S] 0 Late Ch:£1;:kazma,'*«VAg:;d~--.5£5 ysars,
Rfa D0dd3l§§j}z1ji, ~_ ' _ 
Dodciab elavaiigaia' 'fiob Ii,
E)oddé;&aba?iiapuI'a a¥3._;_i£;,. v

... Respondent

«   M.S.AshWi;r1 Kumar, Advocate. )

i?t%g§1lar Secand Appaal ﬁled under Séctian 169 of the

  against the judgment and decree datmi ?.9.2006
'  T.&'paVs:2e.Ei in R.A.N0. 52/2002 (0151 No. 116ji2090) on the: ﬁle of
   Civil Judge (Sr. 1311.}, Doddabaliapura, aﬁowing the appea}
"  setting aside {ha judgment and decree dated 12.6.2000
 passed in 0.8.930. 42/1993 01}. the ﬁle of the Addi. Civii

Judge (.}r.Dn.) 85 J.M.I¥'.C., Dodciabaiiapura.



This appeal cczming on for hearing {hie day, the court
deiivered the following ; 

JUDGMENT

The piairztiﬁ" before the tjz*iéil"'enp1ijt '«pzV{efer1'ed ' this seconé appeai aggieved Cour: dismiesizzg the suit «by the V judgxnent ef the trial V haAd c:¢¢:~eed the suit of the piaintiﬁ' for

2. The that the plajntjif apprefaeliede. :71 eeeldng the relief of up the stalui that, in between the property of the defendant, ~..1:heife"is'-ea Cemmeﬁﬁassage and the said passage is to of the p1a1'n1:iﬁ's suit schedule property t11e1*efe§x"e, as the defendant is tryizzg to put up a iI.3£=fL3'E16 said cemmen passage, the plaintiff had to A Eeeourse to ﬁling the suit fer the aforesaid relief argid it was when the defendant tried te put up a stone " V wan cempeund that the muse of action aroee. }/ . I

3. 011 £116 other hand, the defeiidant COHECSKECE the said suit of the plaintiff by taking up the that-3 is Iii} such open spacs or ccmmqn» vf)aSs:}1gr:_ of '='E~__ feet saparating the property of _f;r'»:§z'1}... tifiﬁ dafﬁnclam: and t13eV;q1_1(3$1:iA-:'21_1""--of emnreaching £11301} the $1:itV"prc§ptéfty:':§does not arise. It is also ciesﬁljgz St~%!.tf:f_: _t,ﬁ%.written statement that the p1air1t'jﬁ' h&S 3ClD:t ~.go't"'. space towards the :10rt11er1:§_':vsi§&}Lc' {if '

4. '§'he ;§ié;aﬁii1gS- of €Ii€"'1:;.21rtieS 16¢} 1:316: trial court £0 frazine' nécr:Ssﬁ3'.y"' vi\sS~11:€:§~3 and, after consicieriﬂg the €videj1f1ce i€;~.f Vi11.Vij§e*AAt.1fu1é'~"i)a1'£ies, the iearnsd trial judga C§(':4E3:1.;ii3f?2§'i'.:tMi'3Cf: $11:ii:"c;a'i""i;he plaimjﬁ' by ganting an order of parﬁzaimhtéyé' xiinjjunction against thfi defendant. The d't¢f;}§nda.1i1'*: L:iaiapealed and st1cc<~::e(3ed in gétting the jildgliztﬁﬁt of the trial court set aside at the hﬂfidﬁ (Itf the appellate ceurt and conssqusntly, the suit; of the % was dismissed.

5. .1 have heard Shri T.Sesh,ag;iri Rae, lf3é':lI'I]f'3{1 counsel for the appellant, and Shri M.S.Ashwir: Kumar, learned 'Ev ,, J 301311561 for the responeient, and perused the recﬁfdts of this cast-:.

6. This «Court fraﬁied the. z>ﬂQw.'iiig_V'4" 2 ' j 2 qiiestion of law at the timé {Elf ,_ "Whether the iower Viiéipijeliateii gas justified in oficiefy of injunctien ..L(v3c;»i.1I't when the €:XiS1;€;1'1(;€ offiie 'disputed, whr:i1_ d.i}é:fA« forth any passage, when ifiii Wali adjoining i3as'sfagé:; sgéindews, water sprauts aI1d_S&iia?'" "3 i Sr'. _}@a.:i'iicd..___(:r_>u11sei for the appeilarn': contended ' _ ihéi appellate Court was not justified in {ii$i1iissiii§1__ suit of the plaintiff when there is evidenﬁtz to indicata that there is some vacant space to A ":if"*«A_.northem side 0f the p£aj;r:£iff's property and, feferrizig to tbs evidence of Dﬁﬁis. 1 and ':2, it is subrnitted that therxiz is a ceramon st-mile W211} campound put up bifurcating the properties 0f the plaéntiﬁ' and the % \ f S deferxdazerzat and the p1ai111:iﬁ's only gievamce is that the defendant sheuid not interfere with his possession of the vacant space within his pm-party. Ther¢fg$§+:%;t._the judgment ef the lower appeilate court intezfarad with by restoring that 9f the = _ .4

3. 011 the carther hand, me 'igaxga-mi <2a:;1r;t%ése1:'t resporzderlt argued that considemci the dacurgxtmts 'by: the and has 2'€COI'd(3d a speitiﬁc deed of the does not i1'1dica'{.e existeiicé of feet beyond the property of the 'Vtti€,rse51'<jte, the }.GW€I' appeilate court has rig"lfi§ttl3::_'--rﬁ1i:_ax:1.1iss:,€Ci'the suit cf the plaintiff. The laanled {;%Q:i11.s'f€:'£..;a1'$c§ made submission that, in between the p1':g}ireItia$"tVtI3e parties, there exists a stone campouad wall "i3;,1fé%i, therefore, the question of the defendailt _t:~rosussi;r:g aver the stone {.':()IIipOLiI]€1 wail and interfering i the: p1air1t:iI'f's property (lees not arise and, as such, the qzmstien of grarxting p€1'fI1a;I}€I1t injunction does not arisa. }' \ I 6

9. Having thus heard both sides and on going through the _i11dg1n6I"1ts 0f the courts below and the evidence let in by the parties, in the backg1'9u:1dV_:

platadings 01' the parties, it is clear that the thfi parties are situated side $i€}.¢ .:i_;}i1'tV:"I'E:v"is Compound made of Siam: slabs s'ej[3.*a;1*::'t7:ing».ti':te_";:1"¥;i;T)'"c:;r*tiii':%_$ of the parties. The apprei}.¢i'1$j.0n cf th..e=:_ that . L' the vacant space, which Ii¢sVVV:A'Wit}1j11 iiis --prQ§§erty i.e., withm tha compound; xéhoixldf-.1jj_0£":§I;at<:rfereci with by the defr::1"2da1"1't.' _ '

10. T116. €::1f£~i13.;$é:I. far the defeI1cia3"11: also stated that the }:ILs:§f<=;:1dé.:1f *has a1*;1<;> ixxtemtion of crossing over the , stoxjg: cémpoiind. Vgyfall and causirig inteﬂerence over the ' pfépgzrty. In addition. t0 the abovtt submission .:'(11:«.a;{1€:,V.i:'I:*,§;éELj ~_£1V{3¥;£:me11t Ex.P-3, which is the 331:: dead of tilt?" aim dues not indicate any open space, or V' {f ﬁgijgr-..co;nmon passage lying in betxveen the properties cxf {:16 respective parties.

11. in the ﬁght ef the above submissions made by {ha iﬁamzeti caunsel for th arties and the documexztary W3 evidence placed aiso not itxdiaating the existence pf any Common passage bet:wee11 the properties of . parties, the question of gaxitting arise as £116 defendant has takexa the thgé atria} csuri: that he has HG int{3I1i::!.Qn1 _ii0 'Viz1'i:'c1ff{=:r e pk-3j11tiff's propczrty. Théféfeije, flxcaj ~<::f' £116' ' %' plaintiff intexfeﬁag with theAVd€if ef:d'ant"'s ;§1'0vpe:st'§3.»' nor -the deferzdanf; iz1te,rfer§.ng pmperty dees net arise. H€:,1i(:::;_,_ "I€iWt'c,V::* g§;j§;»j;v5f-«:%1'1:2:i;e:':i:Vki>3.11't was jusﬁiﬁed in dec1i11i;a1*g"'» .. court's order and dismissax me p1aim::ﬁ' by the lower appeilaié ¢c}11rtV'C;1i:1if101:: 't;+3.;tanned as erroneous either on factﬁ; em: 11: law»... _ _

-- questicm of iaw, therefare, stands a.11swe1"r;d_L' éjfgti the afﬁrmative and coxmequentiy, the ' V" V . ' :g;ppe:é$gf-A:§ta11ds dismissed. sd/-5.

Iudqe eke/~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court