Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
Kamalamma, Since Dead By Her Lrs.- S. Ramadas Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeevappa, Since Deceased By Lrs.- Sri Muniyappa, Son Of Late Sanjeevappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim regarding property and violations (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. defendant's arguments against the trial court's decision (Para 15 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and law (Para 24 , 27 , 31 , 32 , 40) |
| 4. judicial findings based on established law (Para 42 , 43) |
| 5. conclusion to dismiss the appeal (Para 44) |
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Defendants in O.S No.2440/1996 are the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2012 passed in said suit on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
3. Operative portion of the judgment and decree reads as under:
“Suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is declared that, the construction made by defendant No.1, now her Legal heirs defendant No.1(a) to (g) upon the suit schedule 'B' property is in violation of sanction plan and is illegal construction.
Consequently, defendant No.1(a) to (g) are hereby directed to demolish the deviation as noticed by the Commissioner within 3 months from the date of order. In case of failure, defendant No.2 to take appropriat
Construction without adherence to sanctioned plans violates legal provisions and prior judgments limit contradictory claims in property disputes.
A writ petition challenging local authority actions is not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies are available, especially if a related appeal is pending.
Point of law: writ petition was not barred by either on the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. In the peculiar facts of the case since the issues referred to supra namely issue ....
Owners have the right to challenge unauthorized constructions violating building bye-laws, and the Limitation Act allows for continuance of action in such breaches.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of interim injunction should adhere to the settled principles under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and the court should not interfer....
In a suit for injunction alleging illegal construction, the Court must consider all relevant evidence, including the building plan sanctioned by the Municipal Authority, and implead the Municipal Aut....
While examining the judgment of trial court, the appellate court has to render its finding only after dealing with all the issues of law as well as of fact and with the oral as well as documentary ev....
Point of Law : Prevalent situation either in the limits of the Corporation, Municipality or the Panchayat if noticed, it would demonstrate clear apathy on the part of the Authorities towards the citi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation Officers must comply with the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, treat everyone equally, and not....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
