BHAGYARATHNA BHOPAL SURYAVANSHI Vs. A. PAPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 185/1998. The second defendant - Hinkal Grama Panchayat in the said suit had filed a suit in O.S. No. 196/1998 to restrain the appellant herein from putting up construction. The appellant herein had filed another suit in O.S. No. 230/1996 against Mysore Urban Development Authority seeking injunction against interference. Hence, all the three suits were clubbed and a common judgment dated 31.08.2006 was passed by the trial Court. By the said judgment, the suits filed by the appellant herein in O.S. No. 185/1998 and O.S. No. 230/1998 were decreed. The suit filed against the appellant herein in O.S. No. 196/1998 was dismissed. The judgments passed in O.S. No. 196/1998 and O.S. No. 230/1998 attained finality, while the judgment passed in O.S. No. 185/1998 was carried in appeal by the second defendant by filing R.A. No. 517/2010. The Lower Appellate Court by its judgment dated 23.04.2011 has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff is therefore before this Court.

(2.) THIS Court at the first instance had allowed the appeal by the judgment dated 12.08.2011. The respondent thereafter filed a review petition in R.P. No. 403/2011 bringing to the notice of this Court that the suit subject property was gifted away under deed dated 06.12.2006 and as such the plaintiff has no interest in the property. This Court by the order dated 07.03.2013 allowed the review petition and restored this appeal for reconsideration on recalling the judgment dated 12.08.2011. In that view, the appeal having once again arisen for consideration is being disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) WHETHER the relief in respect of the same also should be denied for suppressing the fact is another aspect since the learned counsel for the respondent has urged such contention. Subject to the same, what is required to be noticed herein is only the case sought to be made out by the appellant in respect of one item of the property retained by the appellant i.e., schedule -1 and it is not necessary to advert to the details regarding the schedule - 2 and 3 properties since the same in any event does not arise for consideration. Hence, the facts noticed herein are only with regard to the suit schedule -1 property and the parties are also referred in the same rank as assigned to them before the trial Court.