Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K. MANMADHA RAO, J
T. T. RAJESH – Appellant
Versus
T. N. BABU – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges trial court's refusal for survey appointment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. need for demarcation and adjudication of common areas in property. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court agrees on importance of boundary marking for dispute resolution. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court orders re-evaluation of previous order and appointment of a commissioner. (Para 12) |
CAV ORDER
2. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 before the trial Court and the respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court and the respondents No.2 and 3 herein are the defendants No.2 and 3 before the trial Court.
4. The Brief facts of the case are as follows:
It was further urged that the property is a vast extent of land and, in the absence of precise identification of the starting and end points of each share, there is possibility of misuse of the common area, and therefore, appointment of a government surveyor would facilitate proper adjudication of the dispute.
On perusal, the trial Court finds that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction alleging interference by the defendants in the suit schedule property which had fallen to his share under the partition dated 31.03.19
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
