Mr M Chandrappa vs Mrs Kaveramma
2023 Latest Caselaw 7847 Kant

                                            -1-
                                                        NC: 2023:KHC:41673
                                                      RFA No. 1194 of 2008




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                         BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                           REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1194 OF 2008

                  BETWEEN:

                  1.   MR M CHANDRAPPA
                       S/O LATE MESTRI MUNISHAMAPPA
                       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

                  2.   MRS PADMAMMA
                       W/O MR M CHANDRAPPA
                       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                       BOTH R/AT NO.32, BABUSABARAPALYA,
                       KALYANAGARA POST, K R PURAM HOBLI
                       BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560038.
                                                             ...APPELLANTS
                  (BY SRI. MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
                      SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
R MANJUNATHA
Location: HIGH      AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                  MRS KAVERAMMA
                  W/O MR ANJANAPPA,
                  AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
                  R/A FLOWER GARDEN,
                  BABUSABARAPALYA, KALYANANAGARA POST,
                  K R PURAM HOBLI, BANGLAORE EAST TALUK

                                                            ...RESPONDENT
                  (BY SRI. VIVEK.N., ADVOCATE FOR
                  SRI. Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY & ASSOCIATES)
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:41673
                                          RFA No. 1194 of 2008




     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 96 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND
DECREE DATED 15.09.2008 PASSED IN OS.No.4831/07 ON
THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE,
(CCH-16),   DISMISSING   THE    SUIT    FOR   PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AND ETC.,

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Manjunath Hegde, learned counsel for the

appellants.

2. Challenge in the present Appeal is to the judgment and

decree passed fin O.S.No.4831/2007 dated 15.09.2008 on the

file of the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, CCH-17.

3. The suit is one for bare injunction which came to be

dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the since

title with regard to suit property and lawful possession, the

plaintiff is unable to establish before the Trial Court appellants

are intending to file comprehensive suit with prayer for

declaration and consequential relief and reserving such liberty,

appeal may be disposed of.

NC: 2023:KHC:41673 RFA No. 1194 of 2008

5. Learned counsel for respondent Sri Vivek N, representing

Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy & Associates opposes the said submission

especially with regard to the liberty.

6. Taking note of the fact that the suit of the plaintiffs came

to be dismissed holding that he has not in lawful possession of

the property, no other relief can be granted in this appeal

except permitting the plaintiffs to file a comprehensive suit

seeking appropriate relief.

7. Submission of Sri Manjunath Hegde, in this regard is

placed on record. However, while permitting the plaintiffs to

file a comprehensive suit valuable rights that have accrued to

the defendant especially the question of limitation and other

aspects of the matter cannot be lost sight by this Court.

Reserving such of the defences to be urged by the

defendant/respondent in the intended suit would meet the ends

of justice. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is dismissed.

(ii) However, plaintiffs/appellants are at liberty to file comprehensive suit and if any such suit is

NC: 2023:KHC:41673 RFA No. 1194 of 2008

filed, defendant is at liberty to canvass all possible defences including the question of limitation.

(iii) Observation made by the Trial Judge in the impugned judgment shall not affect the merits of the matter in the intended suit.

      (iv)    No order as to costs.



                                           Sd/-
                                          JUDGE




kcm