M.B.MANJUNATHA Vs. UMESH BOREGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the plaintiff in O.S. No.4387/2014 on the file of the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court']. The petitioner's suit is for permanent injunction against the respondent from interfering with his asserted possession of site described as bearing No.16, Katha No.649, Mallasandra Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk [the subject property]. The civil Court by the impugned order, for the reasons mentioned therein, has permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint to seek proper remedy subject to law of limitation and payment of Court fee as per the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act , 1958.

(2.) This order is a result of the controversy over whether the respondent's counsel could ask the petitioner, who is examined as PW.1, a particular question relating to the survey number in which the site is carved out. The civil Court, while considering such objections, has examined the rival pleadings and the exhibits marked. The civil Court has opined that for complete and effective adjudication, it may have to decide the questions such as whether the subject property is part of the land in Sy. No.75/2 of Mallasandra Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli or otherwise, whether this land is converted from agricultural to non- agricultural purposes and whether his vendor could trace title to such land.

(3.) The civil Court has opined that the aforesaid questions can be considered only in a comprehensive suit and not in a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction. The civil Court has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ' ANATHULA SUDHAKAR v. P. BUCHI REDDY [DEAD] BY LRs AND OTHERS ' reported in 2008 [4] SCC 594.