IN ‘THE HIGH CORR’? OF’ KARNATAKA AT F¥ANGAi..ORE
DATED ‘E’H§S THE} 23″” DAY 02:’ -JANUARY » V
BEFORE
THE HON’BLF€ MR…§I.ISI’i{?E'”A;S.«B(3’PA_Hi§2§'<_
MRA. N0.449::~; ms' «.
flE’l’WEEN:
;. KEMPEGOWDA @ KAR__1G0wDA_,_R§.__
ago YALAVEGOWDA, ‘ ‘
AGED wow? 55 mar-:«3.f’ _ I
2. s11>13:;:;}osav..1Vi:=–.,1″4:.;.,V 1, ‘
S/QvMKEra;PE.;3ow13A, ‘- _
AGED AE:r)u’:r*’;2:sV_j’rga;’-2.3,” – _ .
3. JAYAARfgMLI_@’$.&4§Rit3€)W.i§}§,”‘.
s/0 KEMPEEEOWDAV, ” V
AGED 23 YEARS}, V
“””
, aiwjo LATE”K.Am”HARA.3U,
L fiC§E:3:}.’f§£3{flJjT”‘Q5 YEARS,
ALL ‘ARE é1″Aj gMf£:?rHAHALL1 WLLAG-E,
:~:o*mA’mi~ HQBL},
‘ V MANDHX’ TALUK. .. APPELIANTS
H ” ‘ x s 4_ :B*f”Mrs: BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADV.)
” RSURESH, S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
MAJOR, R/A MCYFHAHALLI VILLAGE,
KOTHATHI HOBLI,
MANDYA TALU K.
dependency’. In this regatti, it 1’3 mfltendtxi on behaIf ‘r3f»the
appellants-claimanta that the decruasexi was: V.
yttars and was tmgagtati in assisting the ‘ ‘
_agricu’itum1 act.ivit.1’cs. With mgangi’ “‘%;s~:1;i:’z’
matter, the Tfihil1’18l has assarsaed ._
per month and on deduction ofizhe ‘V V
penmual expenses of thtj
the oompensatinn.
is to be noticed that even in
I’€:S’pFCt 6f’ 3-; _(>rin2i_iié” itlmme as. assessed by the
Tn’I»:g~ma3F is “finfmaisy fakéfi by this (mm. in the instant
“~p_’afi.{“,’)’ tF5éV’ assiisfing the famiiy in carrying out
work in their Iands, and as smith the
the deceased tsnrwsfldsa the evocation of the
“-.f3=;mi1y” w;51=.;id have to IR: asa=ms:”-zed at Rs.3,f§OO[– per month.
Imknnefi the said imxnnc in the instant case, the
cfiadtlcticrn has to he one third of the anm-lint, not only in View
of the law laid down by the Hnnfhic Suprtsme Ccnzrt in this
mgarri, Emf. noticing that in the facts and cimumstancrcs of
£
7′ Appeal aoonniingly smndfi dispoeuii. 3
as toeosts.
vrmmus ‘