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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
NAGARAJA S/O NINGAPPA – Appellant
Versus
WOOLEN HANDLOOM WEAVERS PRODUCES CO-OPERATIVE – Respondent
RSA 2188/2006



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

R.S.A. NO.2188/2006

BETWEEN:

1. NAGARAJA S/O NINGAPPA

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

2. CHANDRAPPA S/O BASAPPA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

3. THIMMANNA

S/O BASAPPA

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

4. M RAMA @ RAMMANNA REDDY

S/O MALLA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

5. KARATE THIMMANNA

S/O ERAPPA

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

6. MEERAGANTI BASAPPA

S/O MALLAPPA

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

7. M CHANDRA REDDY

S/O GOVINDA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

8. SMT LAKSHMAKKA

W/O NAGAPPA

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

2

9. SMT SIDDAMMA

W/O CHANDRAPPA

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

10.

SMT NAGAMMA W/O J T SIDDAPPA

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

ALL ARE R/OF CHIKKAMADURE

HIREMADURE POST, KASABA HOBLI,

CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

... APPELLANTS

(By SRI : B M SIDDAPPA, ADV,)

AND

1. WOOLEN HANDLOOM WEAVERS

PRODUCES CO-OPERATIVE

SOCEITY, CHIKKAMADURE

CHELLAKERE TALUK

CHITRADURGA DIST

2. TAHSILDAR

CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522

CHITRADURGA DIST

3. SECRETARY

VILLAGE PANCHAYAT

SOMAGUDDU

CHELLAKERE TALUK-577522

CHITRADURGA DIST

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

CHITRADURGA DIST

CHITRADURGA-577501.

... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. R1 TO R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

3

RSA

FILED

U/S.

100

OF

CPC

AGAINST

THE

JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED: 17.3.2006 PASSED IN

R.A.NO.8/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE

(SR.DN.), CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND

SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED:

5.10.2002 PASSED IN OS.NO. 241/1997 ON THE FILE OF

THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), CHALLAKERE.

THIS APPEAL

HAVING

BEEN

HEARD

AND

RESERVED

FOR

ORDERS

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT

OF

ORDERS

THIS

DAY,

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA,

J.,

DELIVERED

THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the divergent judgment passed

in R.A.8/03 which was pending on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Challakere, plaintiffs of an original suit bearing

O.S.241/97 have filed this appeal under Section 100,

C.P.C.

2.

The respondents herein are defendants 1 to 4 in

the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and

defendants as per their ranking before the trial court.

4

3.

The facts leading to the filing of O.S.241/97 are as

follows:

a)

Plaintiffs

are

permanent

residents

of

Chikkamadure village, Chikkamadure, Challakere Taluk

af Chitradurga District. According to them, land bearing

Survey No.94/1P is an agricultural land belonging to the

Government of Karnataka represented by its Chief

Secretary, Bengaluru, and Tahsildar, Challakere Taluk. It

measures in all 16.38 acres inclusive of Kharab land, out

of which 4 acres has been granted to a lady by name

Thipamma and she is in possession of the same.

b)

Plaintiffs chose to file the said suit in a

representative capacity under Order I Rule 8, C.P.C. on

the ground that the schedule property measuring 2.38

acres in Survey No.94/1P as described in the schedule to

the plaint has had been enjoyed by them for thrashing

agricultural produce grown by them, for stocking manure

by digging pits and to attend to nature call. According to

5

them, villagers have been using 2.30 acres in Survey No.

94/1P since several decades.

c)

The 1st defendant has no manner of right,

title and interest of possession of 2.30 acres of land as

described in the schedule to the plaint. Since the 1st

defendant tried to clean the area measuring 100 x 120

yards out of the suit schedule property to put up a

building, the plaintiffs were forced to file the suit for the

relief of permanent injunction. The reliefs sought for by

the plaintiffs in their suit as found in the prayer column

are as follows:

a)

The plaintiffs pray for Judgment and

decree in favour by granting permanent

injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from

making

any

work

and

making

any

construction in the suit schedule property.

b)

And Court cost and such other reliefs

as the Hon’ble Court deems fir to

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 Back to top