High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M K Srinivasa S/O Kenchegowda vs Sri M P Sathyanath on 17 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri M K Srinivasa S/O Kenchegowda vs Sri M P Sathyanath on 17 July, 2009
Author: N.Kumar


IR Tiifi I-HG}! COURT OF KA.R.HA”I’A.K& KI’ BANGALORE

Dated this thc 27th day ofJu1y, 2069 1 i
BEFORE _§ %
mg HOWBLE MR. mmfxcfix V’:

RgS,A. No. 993 ca” * 1 ” A V

BETWEEH;

” _Sm.t;=-Sjujatha Srmw” ‘ as

553i M K Sziznivasa
Sign Kenchejzgowda V ‘ A_
Since decseeasecl by his L.Ré:–, ~ 1

Ha} Smt Indrani Soma3I1ei;mf” V
W,’ 0 SOII1€§&~}’it”.’}_{éiI’ _ 1
Aged ab04ui,V541′;j§?t:;aI3’« _V

3(1)) Sn” :9: $5 smsg
S] 0 lfftfi’: Sri,rmra:§z,
Fsgad abo’t:.i_47 .y.ea14-3

. ‘I ….. ..’
. Gfviahfid-i.

” Tvirtijyakshipttta Villagc:

. Habfi

V Chazmaiaézma Taluk

Rural Iiistzict

\R{_i 0 Srinivas
‘ ” Agcxl 45 years
Rfat Nidaghatta Village
7 Ma£idurTa111I{
Manciya District mfipmflants

(By Sn’ B. Vishweswamiah, Acivenztate}

V tr::’ms,_;j’i’}m.Go1}ci13.§iéi1tgrantzd 1 acne caf land in $3′, No. 125

thvajé gasné fatharwficnchegowda an 24:8.1944.

grantfizi tcg’ 1:.r1aini:ifi’s father by the Gewmmcni. in 21
~ ..i>:§;£sxzet:n the plai3:a’£:ifi’s father and his hroihers, the:
_ Qf one acre of land in Sj,;,I’§0.i25 fell to the share of thti:
. fathsiz A Pair: Patti wag entered in this Iegaxfi can

A»._ f3’1~1-1€353§ Afser partiticm, the plainfifis father pO$$€SS€t_’I the

2; For the purpose {if ocmvazniencs, the

rciferrexj to 613 they are refezred fat: in the originai V V’

3, The subject matter cf the sifii: i§:_ I«4a’:j1l.:§
12.5 measuring 238 fig guntas which falisyéiiihin L’
mentionéd in the plaint seheau1¢;’~«n§:.z’ch héieifiafibr rcfarred

to as the ‘schcisduie pmpariyifi

4. The saga of lfiztsat, his father
Pail-‘{,Pap3:iah igj:ix_:§..:§ Mtge; o_i%iiV1§:§fil§¥:’fé:§icia13t, The plainfifi
.:e1i”t.a1’n:d majd:jty–i:_;§::&:Vth€ g his mm’ oritgr, his
father mg 1ae;i.;.i§g%’%a13gr%:;5e% Piaintifi’ and his father ha-5

cgnfidencfir Aazfii ‘t3i§i”..»L.Ifl4éfendant as thazity were in gcrcuri

Av;r:*:§Vt%;1(€’::*¢TA–v”ac:re3 ES guntass in the said 83!. No. was

3:»/

gmztas Qwncd by the piajntzifi’ is not pmvedg In —-_’L__h€:»3e’.

c:i;r*cumst;a.nccs5 the Iowm zippaiiate Coax’: was ‘in

declaring the tifie of the plainfifl to the suit SC:E3Lf3.€:1’I:_iICv V’

and 4:i:i1:*r:>«;:i:i11g deiivezry {pf posscssic::a»Ai<:_»_4thc: §I§;ii§9}ii3'§' V

matelial an rctctord claariy est;abii$.§:;es;_'_' T:ii;é:f:=:fi1€ia;I::.:t';"

mannugr right, fitie. or interest c)ir ei*'~~1:ft1€: the * L'

younger brother cf the §é?at.+: _ to
ecctzpy the said propcriyfi '–i'_tz.:is A1i1_}:fr:s;"*.:vLLH1fi»E';Vir%.A:'1';'t:;»1t afier the daath
of his brether he wagxts tQ,.2§fiai Without any

tight, by putting éisf contenfions which

has 112: ' fhe matter", I do rug: find any

merit in question Qfiaw tic: arise for

consédafafim in appeal wifich mexéés admission,

fiaigsgcnnd apprai is di.sm1ss.ed' ,

sa/-

Judge