High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M L Vasudeva Murthy S/O Late M … vs Sri M V Ganesh Prasad S/O Sri M L … on 17 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri M L Vasudeva Murthy S/O Late M … vs Sri M V Ganesh Prasad S/O Sri M L … on 17 September, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 

BEFORE

THE HONELE MR.JUS'?ICEHVA.S.I3'G1?;_Pg.'\H:\TI§{   "

M.F.A. NO. 3916/2:QO61-({:PC3}.. ":   4% A
BETWEEN : " ' 

I SR1 M L VASUDEVA MURTITE' _
S/O LATE M LAOHAIAH S}'h"JT_i'Y 
AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS  ' I 

2 SMT. PARVATPIAVARDHANA S ,  ;V .. 
W/O SR1 M.L'JASI§JDEVA. MURT_H'{"-  *
AGED ABOUf;P'76 YEARS * _  
BOTH :.AI:E.T1'CO.EI«"EE PLANTERS .
R/OF LAL1.'TH~'\ I=>RASA;OAI»'1..»*  
HO.SAMA.NE EXTENSVI_O1\§ ~ 
C?f{IKNIA(}2'\LUE?, C£TY:577 101
New 'A'? SESIIAPPA 
FORT, 'CH1I{MAQ,ALIJI?%«.--»~'577 101

 * " V »--  ...APPELLAN'1'S

(BY M INEUS LAW EY SR1 G SRIDHAR,

 '~  SKI V SRKNIVAS , SR1 M NIKHILESH RAO
   81 SMT. PRITHA SRIKUMAR, ADVS.)

 3 SR1 M V GANESH PRASAD
--.  "S/O SRT.1__\.cI L VASUDEVA MURTHY

' .j~A€.+E{_)a ABOUT 44. YEARS
- T 'E/VOE.SHNAI<RUPA

  BEHIND LALITHA PRASADAM

  E0. E0. NO. 153

g



HOSAMAN E EXTENSION
CHIKAMAGALUR  RESPONDENT

{BY SR1 M V GANESH PRASAD, ASV.)

THIS APPEAL IS FELED U/O R01 (0) AGA:Ns:f ‘N

THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2005 P;Assf:+:D;.GN “1_.A._ M0,. IN
RA.No. 233/2004 {ORIGINALLY RAND. *2/2001~} ON ‘I’H’E”«FIL.E

OF THE I/C ADDL.SESSIQ§’JS JU-po-13, CI-ILKMAGALIJR,
ALLOWING LA. NO. 5 AND RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTSVV

THEREIN FROM FELLING ANY FURT§tIER ‘STANDING IN
THE DISPUTE-JD LAND/A_.ESTAT.E«– _’F1LL–.., DISF’OS_AI,_,’ OF THE
APPEAL. V ‘ .. .

This Appeal? this day. the

Court de1ivere€1vtl0feo’ 11.owii1gV: V

NNNN
Thzouggh the: for admission along with

an appljcatidon Vforeofidofiation of delay, at this juncture, it

“is that”A-the appeai, which arisa from the interlocutory

/2001 has now become infruetuous

inaS1:iue1’1~as:’..-tide regular appeal before the Lower Appellate

“-._V:Coup1*t already been disposed of.

i

Therefore, the present appeal is disposed of as

infruetuous, leaving 3.11 contentions with regard to the

merits to be urged in the suit. N0 order as to costs.

hrp /bms