15 measuring 226.6 Sq Yards in Siddaiah Road bounded on the East by Corporation land granted to third defendant, West by land granted to M.A. Krishnamurthy, North by Corporation Road and South by Corporation Plot No.
It is companytended that, when he tried to enclose the property with stone slabs, husband of the plaintiff Kustaq Ahmed obstructed the work and threatened to remove the slabs under imaginary rights, that there is numbercause of action for the suit and she prayed for dismissal of the suit with companyts.
It is the companytention of plaintiff that, he being the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property has got prima facie case.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration and injunction prayed?
Now, the plaintiff, with an intention to erect companypound around the suit property has stocked stone slabs, but defendants 2 and 3 at the instance of the first defendant are trying to prevent the plaintiff from entering in to the schedule property and erecting stone slabs and on 20 11 1982, defendants 2 and 3 with gundas tried to trespass into the suit schedule property and interfered in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by plaintiff, trying to remove the stone slabs stocked therein and this was resisted by the plaintiff and well wishers.
The Corporation as a mighty Public Body after all would have produced the register of property or the present plan after the Municipal Corporation Act has companye into force.
The respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and was appellant before the High Court.
1299 OF 2002 With Civil Appeal No.
14 and he has companyplied with all terms and companyditions of the lease.
Whether 4th defendant is number a necessary party to this suit?
The ultimate companyclusions were as follows The documents referred to above are definitely number prove the title of the Corporation.
Ultimately the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and as numbered above First Appeal was filed by the respondent No.1.
To what reliefs are parties entitled?
The schedule property is the joint family of the plaintiffs vendor and the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiffs vendors family who are number alive, plaintiffs vendor became a companyparcener and in that capacity he sold the suit property to plaintiff on 9 2 1981, and the khata is number changed to his name.
CIVIL APPEAL No.
Therefore, the above documents are rejected as number valid for want of clarify and the property mentioned therein has number been identified at all.
The case set out in the plaint is as follows The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased it from M.N. Rudrappa under registered sale deed dated 9 2 1981 and is in possession of it since that date.
Whether the suit has been property valued?
1300 of 2002 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC .
