SYALI PARAMESWARAPPA Vs. BALAGAL KRISHTACHAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main point argued in this case is that the suit instituted by the respondent for removal of obstruction caused by the appellant by a wall G.K. is not maintainable by reason of the failure to obtain consent in writing of the Advocate General.

(2.) The facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly stated. The plaintiff is the owner of land shown as A B C D E F in the plan annexed to the plaint while the defendant - Appellant owns an adjoining land marked as N F L M in the plan. According to the plaintiff, the defendant encroached on a road poromboke marked as E G K L and constructed thereon the wall described above and thereby caused obstruction to the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the land belonging to him.

(3.) The defence was that he had not encroached upon road poromboke, that the wall in question had been in existence for several years and that in any event it did not cause any obstruction to the plaintiff as he could reach the road from his and through a path shown as E D G F.