SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Kar) 378

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
R. RAMACHANDRAN – Respondent


Advocates:
C.B.SRINIVASAN, K.S.NAGARAJ RAO

N. D. V. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THESE ten appeals arise out of ten suits viz. , O. S. Nos. 5391 of 1989, 5373 of 1989, 2231 of 1990,5372 of 1989,5390 of 1989,5374 of 1989, 5375 of 1989, 6678 of 1989, 5389 of 1989 and 5371 of 1989 respectively on the file of the XIII additional City Civil Court, Bangalore. the said ten suits were filed by different plaintiffs who are the respective respondents before this court in these ten appeals.

( 2 ) THE appcllanl-BDA was a party defendant in each of the aforesaid ten suits. the lower court decreed the suit of each of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction by his common Judgment delivered in these suits after clubbing them together Being aggrieved by the Judgment, which has gone against the BDA in each of the said suits, the BDA has preferred these ten appeals.

( 3 ) THE fads relevant for the disposal of these appeals, briefly stated, are as under: each of the plaintiffs in the aforesaid ten suits filed before the City Civil Court prayed for a decree for permanent injunction. the pith of the allegation made by each of them in the course of their plaint is that the respective properties which are designated by different site numbers in Sy. No. 80 of Ba


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top