Sri B S Shivamurthy vs Sri K T Chandrappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 1012 Kant

                          1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1702 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI.B.S.SHIVAMURTHY
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST & ADVOCATE
RESIDENT OF DAVALAGIRI EXTENSION
BEHIND SJM COLLEGE
HOLALKERE ROAD
CHITRADURGA                              ...APPELLANT
      (BY SRI.SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:
SRI.K.T.CHANDRAPPA
S/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
ASST. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
R/AT KODAGAVALLI VILLAGE
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
POLICE QUARTERS,
HOLALKERE TOWN- 577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.                ...RESPONDENT

     (BY SRI.R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
     THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 06.08.2020 PASSED IN R.A.
NO.3/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, HOLALKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2018
PASSED IN O.S. NO.76/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, HOLALKERE.
                                2




     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                         JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed by the defendant.

2. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was in

possession of the suit property, which was land bearing

survey No.20/4 measuring 0.05.08 guntas and survey

No.20/5 measuring 0.11.08 guntas and that the defendant

was trying to interfere with his possession.

3. The Trial Court dismissed the said suit on the

ground that the interference was not proved.

4. However, the appellate Court came to a

contrary conclusion and granted a decree for injunction.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends

that the defendant had never interfered with the

possession of land bearing survey No.20/4 and survey

No.20/5 i.e., the suit property and the defendant would

also not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff's land.

6. In view of this submission made by learned

counsel for the appellant, obviously, a decree of injunction

would not in any way affect the rights or interest of the

defendant who only claims possession in respect of land

bearing survey No.20/1P2.

7. In view of the said submission, I do not find

any reason to entertain this appeal since no substantial

question of law would arise for consideration.

8. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.

9. It is made clear that, if there is any

interference in respect of the land bearing survey

No.20/1P2, the defendant shall be at liberty to initiate an

appropriate proceeding against the plaintiff.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GVP