High Court revised the dismissal of an injunction decree granted to the Karnataka Wakf Board over 1 acre 3 guntas of notified Wakf property despite def enciative claims claiming road construction, finding the dismissal unjustified.
Revision against the decree of permanent injunction in favor of the Wakf Board is dismissed.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:10345 CRP No. 381 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 381 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V VISWANATH SETTY., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SWATHI ASHOK, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.8/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE 2nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
NC: 2024:KHC:10345 CRP No. 381 of 2015
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
mis-described, inasmuch as, the western boundary was shown as KIADB, when it was in fact the property belonging to the defendants. It was stated that in order to reach the defendants’ property which was situated on the western side of the suit property, except the road which was existing in the northern portion of plaint schedule property, there was no other access and therefore, the suit for injunction could not be maintained.
access the defendants’ property and therefore, the decree
of injunction seriously prejudices the defendants. He submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was required to be dismissed since the property was mis-described, inasmuch as the western boundary was stated to be the property of KIADB, when in fact it was the property of the defendants.
that the Wakf Board owned the plaint schedule property was not in serious dispute, it is obvious that the defendants could not deny the entitlement of the Wakf Board for a decree of injunction. The Trial Court, in my view, has rightly assessed the evidence and has correctly come to the conclusion that the Wakf Board was entitled to a decree of injunction since it was a notified property. I find no reason to entertain this revision and the revision is
dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
PKS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision plea regarding misdescription of property boundaries and denial of access warrants quashing of the injunction decree
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
noneReferred
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHRI DEEPAK SHETTY / SHRI K.V.DEEPAK / SHRI KIRAN SHETTY / SHRI SHAM KIRAN
THE KARNATAKA WAKF BOARD NO.6
N S SANJAY GOWDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
