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

1987 Supreme(Kar) 296

HIREMATH
NARASIMHA SHASTRY – Appellant
Versus
MANGESHA DEVARU – Respondent


HIREMATH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Civil Judge, mangalore, in R. A. No. 33 of 1976, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, reversing the judgment and decree of the Court of Munsiff, Buntwal, South Kanara in Original Suit No. 170 of 1973, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit land especially on the portion to the west of rain water channel called 'kani'.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-appellant brought this simple suit for injunction alleging that he purchased the suit land from defendant-1 under a registered sale deed dated 16-11-1938 and at the time of the purchase the extent of this A schedule property was not clearly known, the approximate extent was noted in the sale deed but, the boundaries were specifically shown to identify the property and the boundaries have been clearly stated in the sale deed. While there is no dispute with regard to other three boundaries, the eastern boundary is contested by the parties. In the sale deed it is stated that the eastern boundary is a rain water channel and the areca garden of defendant-1. He then























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