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

1995 Supreme(Kar) 416

H.N.TILHARI
S. MADAIAH – Appellant
Versus
SIDDANAIKA – Respondent


Advocates:
RAJASUBRAHMANYA, Shanthanu Patil

H. N. TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal. This appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 30-7-1988 delivered by Sri K. L. Anantharaman, judge of the court of small causes, mysore, as the first appellate court allowing the defendant's first appeal from the judgment and decree dated 19-7-1986 delivered by munsiff, t. Narasipura, in o. s. No. 496 of 1985, whereby the trial court had decreed the suit but the appeal court has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiffs claim in the suit. The facts of the case in brief are:

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for seeking decree for declaration to the effect that there exist a passage measuring 4 1/2 feet east to west and 120 feet north to south in between the houses of the plaintiff and defendant, and seeking decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting any construction on the alleged passage. According to the plaintiffs case, plaintiff is the owner of the house schedule-a and defendant is the owner of house schedule-b. That in between two houses, according to the plaintiffs case, there exists a lane measuring 4 1/2 feet east to west and 120 feet














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