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

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
Raju – Appellant
Versus
Baburao – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Madanmohan M. Khannur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sanjay S. Katageri, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Plaintiffs are before this Court as they are aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit filed for the relief of permanent injunction in O.S. No. 185 of 2005, which was pending on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Chikodi and the affirmation of the same in regular appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in R.A. No. 61 of 2007, which was pending on the file of the FTC-I, Chikodi, dated 28.8.2009. Respondents herein were the defendants in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking given in the Trial Court.

2. According to the plaintiffs, suit had been filed in respect of an open space bearing GPC No. 489 of Nainglaj Village, Chikodi Taluka abutting the house of the plaintiffs. It is stated to be measuring 18.5 feet North and 16.3 feet East. The case of the plaintiffs is that suit schedule property i.e., the house and the open space abutting the house was their ancestral property and they have been enjoying the same from the time of their grandfather and great grandfather. Plaintiffs are stated to be residing in the suit house enjoying adjoining o














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