Mayur Ashok Potdar v. Ahmed Mohammadgous Bagwan

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2025RSA/5694/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed; Section 100 CPC with Order XLII Rule 1 CPC; no substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact upheld; permanent injunction; public road converted to concrete road; compound wall construction obstructed; CTS No.2417/2, CTS Nos.2430, 2431, 2432; TMC Hukkeri; Pattan Panchayat resolution Ex.D17 Rs.15,00,000/-; Ex.D18 estimate; Ex.D19 final bill; Ex.D20 completion report; photographs Ex.D5–7, 10, 11; PW3 admission; OS No.66/2009, OS No.72/2009, OS No.74/2009; R.A.Nos.25, 22, 23 of 2012; Hukkeri, Belagavi; liberty reserved to plaintiffs for other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; no relief granted to the appellants beyond liberty reserved to the plaintiffs to pursue other permissible remedies under law. ¶¶146

Mayur Ashok Potdar Vs Ahmed Mohammadgous Bagwan — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals dismissed; no relief granted to the appellants beyond liberty reserved to the plaintiffs to pursue other permissible remedies under law.

¶¶146

Issue for consideration

Whether the disputed strip shown at point ABC in the plaint hand sketch is part of the plaintiffs' property or part of a public road (since converted into a concrete road by TMC, Hukkeri), ownership and possession of the respective properties otherwise being undisputed. +1 more

¶¶138

Court's answer

In second appeal, absent any ground of perversity or absence of material evidence, the finding of fact arrived at by the Trial Court (endorsed by the First Appellate Court) that a concrete road existed at point ABC of the plaint hand sketch discloses no error or illegality by either court.

¶¶146

Ratio / Principle

No substantial question of law arises for consideration; consequently, the second appeals are dismissed.

¶¶146

Key takeaways

The plaintiffs in OS No.66/2009 (appellants herein), who claim ownership over the portion marked ABC, are granted liberty to seek such remedy as may be permissible and available under law.ratio¶¶152

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), 10 July 2025: Dismissed three connected Regular Second Appeals (RSA Nos.5695, 5694 and 5696 of 2013) filed under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 CPC by the plaintiffs in OS No.66/2009 (defendants in OS Nos.72/2009 and 74/2009), who sought to construct a compound wall over the strip marked ABC in the plaint hand sketch adjoining their property CTS No.2417/2 at Hukkeri. The Trial Court (common judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012) and the First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri; judgments and decrees dated 30.01.2013 in R.A.Nos.25, 22 and 23 of 2012) had concurrently held the strip to be part of a public road since converted to a concrete road by TMC/Pattan Panchayat, Hukkeri, relying on Ex.D17 (resolution granting Rs.15,00,000/-), Ex.D18–D20 (estimate, final bill, completion report), photographs Ex.D5–7, 10 and 11, and PW3's admission of the road's existence. Held: the concurrent findings are findings of fact based on material evidence; with no ground of perversity or want of material shown, no error or illegality was committed; no substantial question of law arises; appeals dismissed, with liberty to the plaintiffs to seek such other remedy as may be permissible under law in respect of their ownership claim over the ABC portion.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5695 OF 2013 (INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5694 OF 2013 (INJ) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5696 OF 2013 (INJ)

¶9

IN RSA.NO.5695/2013:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHRI. MAYUR ASHOK POTDAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: HUKKERI – 591 309, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

SHRI. SIDARAI ASHOK POTDAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: HUKKERI – 591 309, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

BOTH REPRESENTED BY P. A. HOLDER ASHOK MAHADEV POTDAR, AGE:64 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS TQ: HUKKERI – 591 309, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶16

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SHRI. AHMED SHAMSHER MAKANDAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 309.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 1 CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUKKERI IN R.A.NO.23/2012; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUKKERI IN O.S.NO.72/2009; ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY DISMISSING THE SUIT IN

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

O.S.NO.72/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMF HUKKERI AND ETC.,

¶25

IN RSA.NO.5694/2013:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SHRI. MAYUR ASHOK POTDAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: HUKKERI – 591 309, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶28

SHRI. SIDARAI ASHOK POTDAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: HUKKERI – 591 309, DIST: BELAGAVI. BOTH REPRESENTED BY P. A. HOLDER ASHOK MAHADEV POTDAR, AGE:64 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS TQ: HUKKERI – 591 309, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶29

…APPELLANTS

¶30

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

SHRI. AHMED MOHAMMADGOUS BAGWAN, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶33

SHRI. DAWOOD MOHAMMADGOUS BAGWAN, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 1 CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUKKERI IN R.A.NO.22/2012; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUKKERI IN O.S.NO.74/2009; ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY DISMISSING THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.74/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMF HUKKERI AND ETC.,

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

IN RSA.NO.5696/2013:

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

MAYUR ASHOK POTADAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 309.

¶42

SHRI. SHIDARAI ASHOK POTADAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 309.

¶43

A1 AND A2 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, ASHOK MAHADEV POTADAR, AGE:64 YRS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: HUKKERI, DIST:BELAGAVI - 591 309.

¶44

…APPELLANTS

¶45

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

SHRI. AHMED MOHAMMADGOUS BAGWAN, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O : HUKKERI – 591 309.

¶48

SHRI. DAWOOD MOHAMMADGOUS BAGWAN, AGE: 39 YEARS,OCC : BUSINESS, R/O : HUKKERI – 591 309.

¶49

SHRI. AHAMED SHAMSHER MAKANDAR, AGE : 64 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O: HUKKERI – 591 309, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶50

SHRI. GAJABAR AHAMED MAKANDAR, AGE : 44 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O : HUKKERI – 591 309, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶51

…RESPONDENTS

¶52

(NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶53

¶54

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUKKERI IN O.S.NO.66/2009; ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY DISMISSING THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.66/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMF HUKKERI AND ETC.,

¶57

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶58

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶59

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)

¶60

These appeals are by the plaintiffs in OS No.66/2009 who were the defendants in OS Nos.72/2009 and 74/2009. For the purpose of convenience, the appellants herein are referred to as the plaintiffs and respondents herein are referred to as defendants.

¶61

The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners in possession of the property bearing CTC No.2417/2 measuring 406 square meters bounded on the east by: property bearing CTS No.2436 and 2437, west by: property bearing CTS Nos.2430 and 2431, north by: property bearing CTS No.4356 and south by: property bearing CTS No.2417/1, which is shown by letters ABCD (C§PÀqÀ) in the plaint hand sketch. The subject matter of the

¶62

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

suit is an area shown by letters ABC (C§PÀ) of the plaint hand sketch.

¶65

It is further case of the plaintiffs is that they purchased property bearing CTS No.2417 under the deed of sale dated 17.03.2006 which was subsequently assigned CTS Nos.2417/1 and 2417/2. That ever since the date of purchase plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and they being desirous of constructing compound wall around their property, applied for permission from the concerned authorities. Accordingly, on 24.03.2009 they have been issued licence to put up the construction of compound wall. That in furtherance thereof they had collected and stored the required aggregates for the purpose of construction of the compound wall. That the defendants who are in possession of properties on the western side of the property of the plaintiffs have constructed their houses without leaving any set back on the eastern side of their property. That the property of the plaintiffs is surrounded by the buildings

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

on the east, on the north and on the south and it is only on the western side they are required to put up construction of compound wall at the point shown by letters ABC (C§PÀ) . When the plaintiffs were in process of putting up of a construction of compound wall at the point ABC (C§PÀ), the defendants obstructed, prevented and threatened the plaintiffs from putting up the compound wall and have also thrown away cement and bricks which were collected and kept for the said purpose by the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants of putting up the construction at point letters ABC

¶70

(C§PÀ) in the plaint sketch.

¶71

Defendants appeared through their counsel. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement which was adopted by defendant No.4 denying the averments and allegations made by the plaintiffs and have contended that plaintiffs obtained the permission from the concerned Town Municipality Council, Hukkeri, (for short, ‘TMC

¶72

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Hukkeri’) for the purpose of construction of a house by using political clout. That their houses are facing towards the eastern side. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the owners of the property bearing CTS No.2432, defendant Nos.1 and

¶76

2 are the owners of the property bearing CTS Nos.2430 and 2431 and there houses are facing towards the eastern side. That towards the eastern side of their houses there is a public road running towards north to south having width of 13½ feet by the side of the said road there is a gutter having width of 1½ feet. Towards the eastern side of the said road is the property of the plaintiffs. That towards the southern side of the property of the plaintiffs there are some houses facing towards the western side. That by the

¶77

side of the said road there is a vacant place belonging to defendant Nos.3 to 4. Defendants and their neighbouring

¶78

house owners are enjoying the said road from the beginning. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 and their ancestors were doing agarbatti business. Previously there was a mud road. That about 7 - 8 months ago, TMC, Hukkeri, reconstructed the said road by converting it into the

¶79

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

cconcrete road by utilizing the grant by the Government for the purpose of construction of roads. That the plaintiffs under the political influence are attempting to put up the building and compound wall on the said public road. If the plaintiffs put up such construction, the defendants and other neighbours will be put to hardship. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶82

Defendant No.3 in OS No.66/2009 namely Ahmed Shamsher Makandar has filed a suit in OS No.72/2009 against the said suit. Similarly, defendant Nos.1 and 2 in OS No.66/2009 have filed suit in OS No.77/2009 against the plaintiffs. The pleadings in the said suits are similar to the contention taken by the parties in OS No.66/2009. The Trial Court based on the pleadings framed the following issues:

¶83

In OS No.66/2009:

¶84

1. Whether the plaintiff prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule A,B,C spot?

¶85

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are legally constructing the compound wall as stated in the plaint?

¶86

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove the interference of the defendants?

¶90

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the relief sought for in the plaint?

¶91

5. Whether the defendants are entitle for the compensatory costs?

¶92

6. What order or decree?

¶93

In OS No.72/2009:

¶94

1. Whether the plaintiff proves the existence of suit schedule public road?

¶95

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that himself and his neighbours are using and enjoying the suit schedule road as stated in the plaint?

¶96

3. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference of defendants?

¶97

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought for in the plaint?

¶98

5. Whether the defendants are entitle for the compensatory costs?

¶99

6. What order or decree?

¶100

In OS No.74/2009:

¶101

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove the existence of suit schedule road as stated in the plaint?

¶102

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are trying to construct the building in the suit schedule property?

¶103

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the relief sought for in the plaint?

¶106

4. Whether the defendants are entitle for the compensatory costs as prayed for?

¶107

5. What order or decree?

¶108

General Power Attorney holder of the plaintiffs examined as PW1 and 25 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 and five more witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW6. Five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defendants as DW1 to DW5 and got marked 26 documents at Ex.D1 to D26.

¶109

On appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 5 in OS No.66/2009 in negative, issue Nos.1 to 4 in OS No.72/2009 in the affirmative and issue Nos.1 to 3 in OS No.74/2009 in the affirmative, while issue Nos.5 and 4 in OS No.72 and 74 of 2009 respectively in the negative and consequently, by its common judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in OS No.66/2009 and decreed the suits in OS No.72 and 74 of 2009 granting permanent injunction

¶110

11 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

restraining the plaintiffs (who were the defendants in OS No.72 and 74 of 2009) from constructing any type of building or compound wall in any manner on the suit schedule ABCD (C§PÀqÀ) road.

¶114

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid common judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred three regular appeals in RA Nos.25, 22 and 23 of 2012 respectively. The First Appellate Court framed the following common points for its consideration in all the three appeals:

¶115

1. Whether the appellants prove the fact that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court is illegal, improper and not based on proper appreciation and oral and documentary evidence available on record and even proper issues are not framed by the Trial Court?

¶116

2. Whether the appellants prove the fact that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is one sided, capricious which is resulted in miscarriage of justice and as such interference of this Court is required for setting aside the same?

¶117

3. What order or the decree?

¶118

On re-appreciation of the matter answered

¶119

point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the appeals confirming the judgment and decree

¶120

12 -

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

¶124

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants / plaintiffs reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submitted that neither of the parties have produced any document to substantiate their contention of existence of the road either on the eastern side of the property of the defendants or on the western side of the property of the defendants. However, he relies upon the photographs produced at Ex.P7, P8 and P9 to contend that the space shown in ABC (C§PÀ) of the hand

¶125

sketch belonged to the plaintiffs which is now being claimed by the defendants as a public road.

¶126

He refers to Ex.P1, the sale deed under which the plaintiffs purchased the property to point out that in the schedule shown in the said document there is no road on the western side of their property. That on the western side of the property of the plaintiffs, there exist property bearing CTS No.2431.

¶127

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

He refers to Ex.P5 which is the sketch issued by the City Survey authorities to contend that on the north, south, east and west of the property belonging to the plaintiffs there are private properties and there is no road as contended by the defendants.

¶130

He also refers to the plan issued by the Pattan Panchayat, Hukkeri, permitting construction of a house by the plaintiffs and referring to the same he submits that on the western side of his property there lies property bearing CTS Nos.2430 and 2431 and there is no mention of any road even the said document.

¶131

Thus, referring to the aforesaid documents and the photographs produced as already referred to above, the learned counsel vehemently submits that none of these documents produced by the plaintiffs would any manner whatsoever indicate existence of a road on the western side of their property and submits that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not adverted to these aspects of the matter and have thus, erroneously come to the conclusion of existence of a road as claimed

¶132

14 -

¶133

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

by the defendants. Hence, he submits that the nonappreciation of material evidence produced by the plaintiffs by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court gives rise to substantial question of law warranting interference in the hands of this Court.

¶136

Heard perused the records.

¶137

The ownership and possession of the respective properties by the plaintiffs and the defendants is not in dispute. The issue is only with regard to the portion shown at ABC (C§PÀ) of the plaint hand sketch which according to

¶138

the plaintiffs is a part of their property while according to the defendants is a part of a public road, which is now converted into concrete road by the TMC, Hukkeri.

¶139

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on appreciation of the material evidence have come to the conclusion with regard to the existence of the said concrete road on the point ABC (C§PÀ) of the plaint hand sketch. For the said purpose, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have relied upon the documents namely,

¶140

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

Ex.D17, the resolution passed by the concerned Pattan Panchayat granting a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the purpose of construction of concrete road, Ex.D18 the estimate prepared and submitted by the said Pattan Panchayat for the purpose of construction of concrete road, Ex.D19 the final Bill and Ex.D20 the completion report of the construction of the cement road. Ex.D5 to 7, 10 and 11 are the photographs wherein, the existence of the concrete road is visible and process of construction of compound wall by the plaintiffs is also seen.

¶143

That apart PW3 in his deposition has admitted to the existence of the suit schedule concrete road as claimed by the defendants. Thus, based on these material evidence the trial court and the first appellate court have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had indeed attempted to put up compound wall and construction on the concrete road formed by the panchayat authorities at the points ABC (C§PÀ) shown in the plaint sketch.

¶144

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶145

HC-KAR

¶146

The aforesaid finding of facts and conclusion arrived by the Trial Court based on the evidence and in the absence of any ground made out with regard to the perversity or absence of any material evidence, this Court in the second appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case is of the considered view that no error or illegality is committed by the Trial Court or by the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law would therefore arise for consideration. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

¶147

At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that since the plaintiffs are claiming their ownership over the said portion of the property marked by letter ABC (C§PÀ) of the plaint hand sketch, they may be reserved liberty to seek substantial relief.

¶148

Submission is taken on record.

¶149

17 -

¶150

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8604 RSA No. 5695 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5694 of 2013 RSA No. 5696 of 2013

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

Plaintiffs in OS No.66/2009, who are the appellants in these appeals, are at liberty to seek such remedy as may be permissible and available under law.

¶153

All pending applications, if any, are disposed off accordingly.

¶154

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶155

SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Mayur Ashok Potdar v. Ahmed Mohammadgous Bagwan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayur Ashok Potdar v. Ahmed Mohammadgous Bagwan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Basappa S/O Rayappa Rudragoudar Vs Shri Rayappa S/O Irappanna Rudragoudar

Smt.Devakka W/O Puttappa Jaggin Vs Smt.Gangavva Kom. Shiddappa Kurabar

Shri Prakash S/O Tukaram Dongare Vs Smt Savita W/O Raju Dongare

Mallayya S/O Sangayya Mathad Vs Yallappa S/O Gadegeppa Gidgannavar

Mayur Ashok Potadar Vs Ahmed Mohammadgous Bagwan

Mayur Ashok Potdar Vs Ahmed Shamsher Makandar