Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)

Channappa Hanamant Chikkareddi vs Kallappa S/O Mallappa Thambad on 10 November, 2017

54. Further the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 contended that the suit is barred by the provisions of Orde II Rule 2. As I have already discussed that the cause of action in the previous suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.26606/2009 is only with regard to arrears of rent and eviction of tenant. Further there is no cause of action with regard to title of suit schedule property and defendants No.1 and 2 are not the parties in the said suit. Thus, in support of my finding I relied on the decision reported in 2018 AIR Civil Cases 739 (KAR) in case of Channappa Hanumanth Chikkareddy v/s Kallappa Mallappa Thambad. It is held 51 O.S. No.27120/2012 thus, plaintiff had filed a earlier suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession as protected tenant. In the subsequent suit plaintiff claimed absolute ownership of the property on the basis of subsequent sale deed obtained. Bar of Order II Rule 2 of CPC not attracted. Thus, there is no material before the court to attract the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC. With the above observation and reasons assigned, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - K N Phaneendra - Full Document
1