Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
A.V. Srinath ,
Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM.,Dharwad.
Respondent
: 08-07-2011 .
the Appeal
Appeal against
Year/s
3
Month/s
09
Day/s
14
( A.V. Srinath)
Principal Senior Civil Judge &
CJM.,Dharwad.
:JUDGMENT:
1.
2.
a.
Madhwacharya
was
succeeded
by
Sri
Swami
Mutt,
also
known
as
Sumateendra Mutt.
c.
Samsthana.
According
to
the
then
d.
The
Defendant
Mutt
and
the
then
10
11
h.
of
Religious
and
Charitable
12
the
22-03-1991.
In
view
of
the
prevailing
13
14
and 21st
15
9.
16
coming
under
the
Hyderabad
17
18
19
20
and
Poojas
of
the
Saints
whose
21
and
other
religious
functions.
The
22
23
with
the
peaceful
possession
and
24
25
26
1)
27
4)
No.
65/1/1959-60
is
different
from
the
the
Defendants
from
interfering
with
28
29
question
of
existence
of
the
30
submitted
to
the
village
accountant
by
the
31
32
33
trial Court at
34
Ex.D-14 is not
trial Court at
35
36
Judgment to
37
38
39
documents. The
40
circumstances
leading
to
vesting
of
land
in
reads thus:
Whether the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.65/1/59-60 and
R.A.No.45/1968 operates as
resjudicata
against
the
Defendant/Respondent ?
41
c.
W.P.No.16991/1987
and
W.P.No.17108/1987,
proceedings
the
before
42
stating
that
the
Suit
in
43
44
In
Application,
the
Affidavit
besides
accompanying
narrating
in
detail
the
the
45
46
47
In
the
Affidavit
accompanying
the
has
specifically
contended
that
48
In
the
Affidavit
accompanying
the
49
c.
true representation of
Endorsment
50
In
the
Affidavit
accompanying
the
51
52
27. a.
53
b.
given by Tahasildar ,
In
the
Affidavit
accompanying
the
19-03-1916 is a
54
55
56
The
57
Koppal
cannot
and
that
prosecute
therefore
two
the
matters
and also
during the trial of the Suit before the trial Court . The
Appellant has further stated that the documents sought
to be produced are not necessary for the purpose of
determining the dispute involved in the Appeal. The
Appellant has further stated that so long as the
Judgment and Decree in the previous proceedings
between the parties stand unchallenged , the
58
59
to
be
produced
by
the
looked
into
Ex.P-16
document.
The
60
61
62
in O.S.No.74/2010
the
63
deponent
has
further
stated
that
Raja
64
65
2.
3.
4.
5.
66
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
A.L.V.R.
Ct.
Veerappa
Chettiar
Vs.
76
77
13.3.
Whether the plaintiff is in
possession, but his title to the property is in
dispute, or under a cloud, or where the
defendant asserts title thereto and there is
also a threat of dispossession from the
defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for
declaration of title and the consequential
relief of injunction. Where the title of the
plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and
he is not in possession or not able to
establish possession , necessarily the
plaintiff will have to file a suit for
declaration, possession and injunction.
14. We may, however, clarify that a
prayer for declaration will be necessary
only if the denial of title by the defendant or
challenge to the plaintiffs title raises a
cloud on the title of the plaintiff to the
property. A cloud is said to raise over a
persons title, when some apparent defect in
his title to a property, or when some prima
facie right of a third party over it, is made
out or shown. An action for declaration, is
the remedy to remove the cloud on the title
to the property. On the other hand, where
the plaintiff has clear title supported by
documents, if a trespasser without any
claim to title or an interloper without any
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
( Srinivas
90
91
92
Sri
Mahalingeshwara
1971(1)
Devaru
Vs.
93
94
95
96
97
98
question
of
grant,
re-grant,
forfeiture
or
99
100
101
and Sri
102
in Madhwa Sect of
dispute have to
103
104
105
106
107
108
land
and
that
this
shows
that
the
that only on
109
jump
to
the
conclusion
that
the
ig,
CUAAi vAUs z z zsz Ag
192 JPg 14-7 g ( Az UrAi) izs AzAiz
ovAiU owU MAsv g AzU E.
------
110
17-00
DPg
Az
UrAi
qPAz rP.
UAUw
AdUq
gWAz
U
12-3-59.
oz gV.
dAig ge, UAUw
AzUr JeAl.
65. Having submitted an Application as per Ex.P5 stating that the Navavrindavanas are situated within
the area of 14 acres 7 guntas , now the Respondent /
Defendant cannot project a theory to the contrary . It
is on the premise that Navavrindavanas as situated
within the extent of Sy.No.192 that the Defendant had
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
71.
119
extent of land in
120
has
stated
in
his
evidence
that
the
121
has
stated
to
the
effect
that
the
122
issued
by
Tahsildar
Gangavathi
Survey
the Head of
Translation
as
now
alleged
by
the
] has
to
123
are
124
125
01-2015
given by the
Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi
Reports of Department of
mentioned therein
pertain
Sy.
Nos.
314
and
598
of
126
Survey Nos. 495, 496, 497, 578 and 579 and a house
property of Chickkaljantakal village was registered in
the office of Sub-Registrar, Gangavathi , whereas the
Sale Deed of the Plaintiff was registered in the then
existing office of the Sub-Registrar, Anegundi . On
09-03-2015 , the learned Counsel for the Appellant
has produced a memo to the Court along with copies
of the Application dated 09-01-2015 filed by one Sri
Alabanur Raghavendra Rao to the Sub-Registrar,
Gangavathi, Application dated 03-01-2015 submitted
by the GPA Holder of the Plaintiff to the SubRegistrar, Gangavathi for issuing certified copy of
Ex.P-3 Sale Deed , Application filed by the GPA
127
Holder
of
the
Plaintiff
to
the
Sub-Registrar,
given
by
the
said
Sri
Alabanur
in favour of
the
the
128
Sale Deed in
Appellant, the
But,
according
to
the
was
129
filed
by
the
Respondent
seeking
Fresh Survey
130
General
by producing
131
in the
Negative .
132
133
properly
134
placed on record
filed
by
the
Appellant
and
the
135
In the
136
Code
of
Civil
Procedure
137
The
Appeal
filed
by
the
Decree
dated
18-06-2011
Judge
Gangavathi
in
138
Mutt
to
the
perform
( A.V. Srinath)
Principal Senior Civil Judge &
CJM.,Dharwad.