B.N. JAGADISH, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH REPRESENTED BY HIS L.RS. (SMT. PREMA LATHA, W/O LATE B.N. JAGADISH, B.J. RANJIT, S/O LATE D.N. JAGADISH AND SMT. B.J. SUSHMA W/O VENKATARAM) Vs. B.G. RAJASHEKARA, S/O B.R. GOPALA KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT filed O.S. 112/04 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Thirthahalli, against B.N. Jagadish, the husband of the 1st Petitioner and father of Petitioners 2 and 3, in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 4 measuring 20 guntas, situated at Bharathipura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluk, seeking relief of permanent injunction. I.A.1 was filed seeking an order of temporary injunction. The Defendant filed the statement of objections to I.A.1 and also the written statement. The Trial Court finding I.A.1 to be untenable, passed an order dated 24.2.05 and rejected the prayer for grant of temporary injunction. Aggrieved, the Respondent fried M.A. 18/05 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Shimoga. The said appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 15.9.06, which was questioned by the Respondent in W.P.14887/06. The said writ petition was allowed on 7.11.07 and the matter was remitted to the Court below to consider the documents produced in the appeal. The Court below having heard the matter, has passed the judgment dated 17.4.10, whereby, it has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order impugned before it. The Petitioners were restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the Respondent. Aggrieved, the legal representatives of the Defendant have filed this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) SRI K.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, having secured the survey record and the mahazar drawn when the survey of the suit property was conducted, after perusal, does Concede that the Defendant is not a signatory to the mahazar drawn by the survey authority. Thus, it is apparent that the appellate Court by misdirecting itself i.e., by a wrong reading of the mahazar, has passed the impugned judgment. The non application of mind and non consideration of the matter in the correct perspective, is apparent. Hence, the impugned judgment being perverse cannot be sustained.