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

2006 Supreme(Kar) 531

K.L.MANJUNATH
PERIKAL MALAPPA – Appellant
Versus
T. VENKATESH GUPTA – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
Sri G. Gangireddy, Advocate for Appellant;
Sri B.C. Rajeev, Advocate for Respondent.

JUDGMENT

This is the defendant's appeal. The respondent was plaintiff in O.S. No. 1585 of 1996 on the file of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore. The appellant was the defendant in the suit.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to demolish the compound put up by him in B schedule property in the area marked as ABCD in the annexed sketch and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the putting up any construction in the area shown as ABCD.

3. According to the plaint averments, plaintiff is the co-owner of property bearing Nos. 25 and 26 situated at Setty Muddanna Lane, Cottonpet, Bangalore-53. According to him he has become the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed by one Krishnamurthy and others. Krishnamurthy is none other than the brother of the defendant. According to him, he has obtained licence and plan for construction of a building. The defendant being a local MLA and a former Minister has set up the Corporation officials to interfere with the constructional activities of the plaintiff. Therefore, he filed a suit against the Corporation and also against the defe





























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