High Court Karnataka High Court

K S Umesh vs Tharamani on 17 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
K S Umesh vs Tharamani on 17 December, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath & S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH CQURT OF_H§RNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS wag 17?" SAY 0? DECEMBER 2808 3

PRESENT

THE Hox'BLE MR.JUSTICEbK,$;MHNJ§fi$THVz"HE

ANDHRH
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIQE~S;N{$AT¥ANARAY§HA

MISCELLANEOUS FEES? A§?EA§7§Q}3805/2004

BETWEEN:

1 K s UMESH i"; ~ « =u _»_p
.s£THURAMARAc,H,'_
,'u%g§2 yEAR3~'_ j
2 K,s sETHUgAMARAQ'w_ ._
sfo.pATEL*HAnuMAN$HARAo'
AGED_ABGUE_6?*YEARS"

3 ,K»S KéisHNA§RAéAfi
~£S/O;K.S.SETH§RAMARAO
V-AGEE EBGUT 39 YEARS

'15' HHK E RKMESH

.'._sfQ§g,sgsETHURAMARAo
A_ AGED ABGUT 39 yaaas

RLL;ARE MAJORS, HINDUS,
n:_ R/G.D.NO.524
" NEAR MUNESHWAR TEMPLE,
~MUNESHWARA BADAVANE
NITTUVALLE VILLAGE, DAVANGERE

*,"S" K 3 PREMAKUMARE

W/G.NRRAYANASWAMY
MAJGR, R LALAXMI AGENCEES



O?P.BRAHMA CHAITANYA MANBIRA
P J EXTN., DAVANGERE

6 K s SUJATHA

W/O.B.N.DATGATHREYA

ADVOCATE, BAGEPALLI

KOLAR _I._ ; *»j. -V.
'..."A9RELLARTs__"*
(By Sri P GANAPATHY BHAT, ADV )f"a* * w " '"

AND :

1 THARAMANI _
WfO.K.S.UMESH
D/O.RAJA RAO
DOOR NO.96;_ -: ;g. -~
NEAR GANAPATHI TEMP E VA'-'a_W
LABOUR COLONY ~ I .»'
DAvANGERE=_"

2 DEERTRI}, .
S/O.K.S;UMESHE'fiV m_._
AGED;;0'yRAR$,*MIRQR,

BY NEXT FRIEND NBTURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER THARAMANI
.-» u.'-" * RESPONDENTS

(By Ski Jflfifiblsfi MENDARAGI, ADV)

‘ERL_TéIégMF§”is FILED U/S 28 OF HINDU MARRIAGE
ACT, R/R. SECTION 19{1) 0? FAMILY COURTS ACT
AGAINST THE JUBGMENT AND SECREE BATES 30.3.2004

<.u';?ASSEBV IN' M.C. NO. 10/2002 GN THE FILE OF THE

"_J§PGE, "FAMILY COURT, DAVANGERE, DISMISSING THE

._"aPETITION FILED FORE DISSGLUTIGN OF MARRIAGE AND

. DIRESTING THE APPELLANT NO. 1 HEREIN TO RE"CONVEY

'q " THROUGH REGISTERED VALIE DEED THE SUIT SCHEDULE A
I*m?ROPERTY.

THIS APPEAL cc:MING’%f\1 FOR HEARING THIS __.DAY,

.MfiNJUNATH J., EELIVERED THE FQLLQWING: p ,
JUDGMEMT .’

A memo is filed by the 13″ appellpptglfigicpp’
is also signed by the learnéé'”CQupseip:fgfRp£héfi
appellants. The 13: appellap£p$%§ agfpédatppf%;p
convey the property to pfiékmotpeg of ¢€$pbndént”

No.1 in terms of the judgméfit and décree of the

trial Couip Qifhin:f§uf’wéek§.from today at his
cost. ~Ifi=view Bf the’samé; the present appeal is

dismissed as wifindrawh,p