Second Appellate Court entertained appeal against confirmation of a decree claiming ownership and injunction. The court found the property identifiable and tenancy granted via LRY form, dismissing the appeal as it involved no substantial question of law.
Appeal dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
R.S.A.No.1944 OF 2011 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE SOORAPPA POOJARY R/AT KUVETTU VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. ...APPELLANTS
(By Sri. S RAJASHEKAR, ADV.)
AND:
SMT. BIDUGU HENGSU W/O LATE BEDU HARIJAN AGED 76 YEARS, R/AT KUVETTUE VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K DISTRICT. 574241 ...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:23.04.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.28/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, PUTTUR, SITTING AS ITINERARY, BELTHANGADY, DISMISSING THE APPEAL CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
2
DECREE DATED:11.04.1006 PASSED IN O.S.108/1991 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY, D.K.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A.No.28/1996 dated 23.4.2011 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, sitting at Belthangady, D.K., whereby the judgment and decree in O.S.No.108/1991 dated 11.4.1996 on the file of the Munsiff & JMFC, Belthangady, has been confirmed.
3
4
measuring 75 cents and 50 cents have been granted to her and Ex.P2 and P3 are the RTC’s of the said properties from the year 1987-88 till 1990-91. The plaintiff has described the property in the schedule to the plaintiff. In her crossexamination, she has deposed that defendants property is situated on the southern side. If the entire evidence is read together, it is clear that the tenancy of the suit schedule property was granted in her favour under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants are not claiming any right in respect of suit schedule property. I am of the view that the findings recorded by the courts below is on the basis of the proper appreciation of the materials on record. There is no perversity, irregularity or illegality in those findings. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
KLY/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim of ownership and injunction by the plaintiff is maintainable given the defendants' contention that the description of the property is vague.
Whether the courts below committed perversity or illegality in finding the suit schedule property identifiable based on Form No.10 and RTCs under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sathish
Niranja
Dinesh
Smt. Bidugu Hengsu
S. Abdul Nazeer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
