Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The very same plaintiffs above referred had been prevented from entering upon and inspecting the plots of property till the judgment was delivered in the appeals by this court. It is the case of the plaintiffs that it is only thereafter they found that, a common passage separating plots no.1 to 4 and 5 to 8, which was provided by the owners, who formed the plots, for ingress and egress to the respective plots had been indiscriminately dotted with temporary structures put up by the defendants, who had also put up gates at either end of the passage and hence the civil suit in O.S.No.7369/1992 was filed on the file of the Court of the City civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking injunctory reliefs, for the removal of all such obstruction and to provide free passage.

It is also pointed out that the sketch produced at Exhibit P.11 is one prepared by the court commissioner-surveyor, clearly depicting the several plots and the common passage in existence. The same has been reaffirmed by a second report by the Taluk Surveyor. And more significantly the appellant itself had relied on a sketch depicting the self same plots and passage as seen at Exhibit D.2, produced and marked in O.S.No.7369/1992.

It is also pointed out that the plaintiffs had complied with the requirement of issuing statutory notice period of six months' as seen from one of the notices marked as Exhibit P.6, to which the appellant had replied as per Exhibit P.7. Therefore, the claim that there was no notice is not tenable.