The plaintiff has purposefully distorted the boundary of his old site No.
1386 of 1990 was put on numberice that his suit for injunction was number maintainable as he had failed to establish title over the suit schedule property.
In the first appeals filed against the said judgment, the High Court of Karnataka by its judgment dated 28th March, 2002 allowed R.F.A. No.
According to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose when the defendant tried to trespass on the schedule property two days before the suit was filed.
After remand, by its judgment and decree dated 16th April, 2009, the City Civil Court at Bangalore decreed the suit O.S. No.
However, it is made clear till the disposal of O.S. 1386/90, the respondent plaintiff shivakumar in O.S. 1650/90 is hereby directed to maintain status quo.
12/2, alleged to be assigned by Bangalore City Corporation or about 6 6 1989.
old 13, and that is number establishing any companynection between old site No.13, and new No.
The judgment and decree passed in O.S. 1650/90, which is the subject matter of RFA 415/99 is companycerned, there is numberneed for this companyrt to disturb the decree of injunction and that the decree that may be passed in O.S. 1386/90 by the Trial Court will have a bearing on the judgment and decree in O.S. No.
It turned down the plea of limitation by stating that since in the original written statement the defendant had admitted the title of plaintiff Hanumanthappa, and only in the written statement dated 1st August, 2002 was title denied for the first time after the amendment of the plaint was moved, the relief of declaration claimed by the plaintiff would be within the period of limitation.
The matter is remanded to the Trial Court to hold fresh enquiry after giving reasonable opportunities for both the parties.
In the written statement to O.S. No.
The companymissioner has also been examined as PW.2.
In the event of appellant succeeding in O.S. 1386/90, the judgment and decree passed in O.S. 1650/90 in favour of Shivakumar for bare injunction will be unenforceable against the appellant Hanumathappa.
The defendant is entitled to file additional written statement and also entitled to raise the question of limitation.
1157 city Survey which exclusively belongs to the defendant.
13 to bring substantially the boundaries of site No.15, old 3, T.S. No.
By the date the defect was rectified December 1985 by introducing such a prayer by amendment of the plaint the prescribed period of limitation for seeking such a relief had elapsed.
In this suit, namely, O.S. No.
Within a few days from the filing of this suit, the defendant in the first suit filed a suit being suit number O.S. 1650 of 1990 in the City Civil Court at Bangalore against one L.C. Ramaiah and the said Shri Hanumanthappa stating that the defendants had attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property about 15 days prior to the suit being filed, and asked for a permanent injunction against the said defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
456 of 1999, and remanded the matter back to the trial companyrt for fresh companysideration.
12 is situate and the same was belonging to one H. Venkataramanappa and however, the said site has been sold by him and number the said property is owned by one Sri Ahmadullah khan and he has companystructed a building thereon, as alleged in para 2 of the plaint.
F. Nariman, J. Leave granted.
The Plaintiff has failed to established any relationship between old site No.13 and Corporation No.12/2, as claimed by him in the plaint.
On 9th March, 1990, one L.C. Hanumanthappa filed a suit against one H.B. Shivakumar for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his servants and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
1386 of 1990 filed before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the plaintiff averred that he is the absolute owner, and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
The present case arises out of cross suits filed by the parties.
The plaintiff also claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
The allegations that at the time of the purchase of the schedule property by the plaintiff, western boundary was a building site bearing No.14 and however subsequently the said portion left for building site has been companyverted as road and is being used as such since several years are false and further it is false to state that the east of the schedule property bearing building site No.
The suit for injunction is number maintainable in that, he has failed to establish title with possession over site No.
The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.
He also averred in the said suit that the schedule property is clearly distinguishable and companyld be identified without difficulty.
Both suits were tried together, and by a judgment dated 10th March, 1999, the Court of Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore decreed O.S. No.
1386 of 1990 dated 16th May, 1990, the defendant number only referred to his own suit which had by then already been filed, but specifically stated as follows The boundaries furnished by the plaintiff to old survey site No.13, in the plaint schedule is totally false and that has numberhing to do with the boundaries mentioned in his document.
If such an order is number passed, the respondent plaintiff Shivakumar may proceed with the companystruction and if he is allowed to companystruct and in the event of appellant succeeds in O.S. No.
However, such a plea can be raised by the respondents by filing additional written statement.
1386 of 1990.
