Karnataka High Court
Eraiah vs Sadashiva on 5 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4877
RSA No. 1340 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2014 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. ERAIAH
S/O LATE MOLLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
2. KUMAR
S/O LATE MOLLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
3. MARY
W/O LATE DORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
Digitally signed by
JUANITA THEJESWINI SUNKADAHALLI VILLAGE
Location: HIGH HARNAHALLI HOBLI
COURT OF
KARNATAKA PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SADASHIVA
S/O LATE HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT SUNKADAHALLI VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4877
RSA No. 1340 of 2014
HARNAHALLI HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUNEEL S NARAYAN., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 4.8.2014 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.38/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC., HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 16.3.2013 PASSED IN
OS.NO.105/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC.,
PERIYAPATNA AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The appellants herein are aggrieved of the judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.105/2000 by the Civil Judge
and JMFC, Periyapatna, and the judgment of the Regular
Appellate Court in R.A.No.38/2013 passed by the
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur. The suit
was filed by the respondent herein seeking a decree of
permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from
NC: 2024:KHC:4877
interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit
schedule property.
2. During the course of these proceedings, the
appellants herein had also approached the Deputy
Commissioner, Mysuru District, seeking orders for survey
and settlement of the lands said to have been granted in
favour of the appellants herein. Orders were passed by
the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District on 23.06.2020
and the same was challenged by the respondent herein in
W.P.No.8932/2021. By order of even date, this Court has
disposed of W.P.No.8932/2021 with certain directions to
the Deputy Commissioner.
3. Learned Counsels for the appellants as well as the
respondent have jointly submitted that if the Deputy
Commissioner follows the directions issued by this Court
and the parties are put in possession of their respective
lands in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the
parties will have no inter se dispute between themselves.
NC: 2024:KHC:4877
4. In that view of the matter, both the learned
Counsels have jointly submitted that this Regular Second
Appeal may also be disposed of having regard to the
orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.8932/2021.
5. Placing the submissions of the learned Counsels
for the appellants as well as the respondent on record, this
Regular Second Appeal is also disposed of permitting the
parties to have the dispute resolved in terms of the
directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.8932/2021.
Needless to observe that since the respondent herein is
said to have been in possession of a different portion of
land than what was actually granted, the restraint order
passed by the Trial Court shall be continued but will
operate in terms of the lands that would be identified by
the Deputy Commissioner and not as per the boundaries
shown in the suit schedule property. The learned Counsel
for the appellants also has stated that the appellants will
have no objection, since this Court has directed the
Deputy Commissioner to identify the lands that were
NC: 2024:KHC:4877
granted in favour of the appellants herein and a direction
is also issued by this Court to put the appellants in
possession of 2 acres of land each and that would satisfy
the claim of the appellants.
6. In that view of the matter, this Regular Second
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JT/-
CT: JL
