Bhimappa v. Keshav
Case brief
What is this about?
This regular second appeal challenged a decree for recovery of possession based on a DDLR survey report showing encroachment. The High Court held that the appeal was meritless as the sub-division of the land was not proved.
What did the court decide?
Regular Second Appeal dismissed without order as to costs. Previous decree for possession set aside.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1812 OF 2007 (RES)
BETWEEN:
BHIMAPPA S O BHAIRAPPA DUNDAGI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S
- SMT. BHAGIRATHI W O BHIMAPPA DUNDAGI
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: KAMATNUR TAL: HUKKERI -591313, DIST: BELAGAVI.
- SRI BHAIRAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA DUNDAGI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAMATNUR, TAL: HUKKERI 591313, DIST: BELAGAVI.
- SRI SADASHIV S/O BHIMAPPA DUNDAGI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAMATNUR, TAL: HUKKERI-591313, DIST BELAGAVI.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have encroached to the extent of 1 gunta of land as shown in the P.T. sheet?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession of said 1 gt of land?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Bhimappa S O Bhairappa Dundagi (since deceased) heirs
- respondent
Keshav S/O Vasudev Kulkarni (since deceased) heirs
Coram
Jyoti Mulimani
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- RSA/1812/2007
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court