M. KRISHNAPPA Vs. PARVATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) RESPONDENT in RFA No. 1888/2010 having been served has remained unrepresented. However, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in RFA No. 589/2010, who could have also entered appearance for the respondent in RFA No. 1888/2010 has remained absent.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1153/1995 was to the effect that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the property described in schedule A' of the suit property and defendant was the owner of the property described in schedule 'B' of the suit property. There was an alleged common passage shown by the letters DEFC in the sketch annexed to the plaint and the defendant claimed to be the owner of 'C schedule property marked as GHEF in the sketch. All the properties described in schedule A', 'B' and 'C were stated to be part of Khaneshmari No. 117, situated at Hebbal village, Bangalore North Taluk. The measurement of the property described in schedule A' East to West 14 3/4 feet and North to South 41 feet, 'B' schedule property measuring East to West 4 feet and North to South 41 feet. 'B' schedule property was claimed to be a common passage for use of both the plaintiff as well as the defendant and it was alleged that defendant was beginning to construct a building making use of the area measuring 4 x 41 feet which was described and shown as 'B' schedule property and it was claimed that such interference was the cause of action and hence, sought for injunction.