S K Lingannaiah vs K S Narayana Rao on 8 September, 2008

Wu... W nnmmnzmrsn mu»:-1 uuumm mmmam mm mam Q? mmsmmm men COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH (SOUR? as KARNATAKA mew coma

'Vb

 ms'm::'r-5?71o1

3: am; man comm' or KARHATAKA, BAHGAIa§2F§£'_:"~.V_v
mrrm ms mm am mm or SEPI'E1!mEI_~'_i'--  f  

BEFORE   

'ms §-I{I}!i'BLE am. JUSTICE §';JAGz%fiH.,'__     

REGULAR SEQ HQ

S.K&LmGfi.NHAIA.H ‘ ” 7
S40 $,L.KESmV
.a<3~z.:42 YEfiRS_f.. % _
AGRICULTKIRWJI' "

R£’G§{AIAS&3F”t.’Ii?£’–V-

c}m<z~..%.kT.*a’?f’?’;%$m:L:;.%
{BY

AFPELLANT

K.3§:;ii*Ifi,§R;:£YAN25§”1?£’:§”

] $39 K;3$E3

.a;.t:sE::T. 33; Wgzafis

:«E*§;wE:1:2«::§.m–1ER

V 2* K.§’;’I§.AJ%§{}}1i5PAIP;£-I

spa K;sE3

mg; 31 YEARS
A __REé?’§,f’;!iRED mac:-rm

% A c:–§KM’acm.m TALUK AND
RESPGHDENTS

(Mm LEX I{*i’E15fi§3, wmmzs &
SRI,&,I§.Rfi5a?ISHABIKAR, Aflfim F03′ CIIQ’-1)
CABSEWIE

………..;

ms:-i couwr M KARNATAKA HIGH courrr or mammm mas-1 came’: of xA1mA’mcA HIGH coma

# * =§i}x.15*¥2§ ‘9″

C€)I..El{T OI’ Kfi.:KNA’§’fi.KA REG?-I COURT-02$ ICRRNIWAKA

11% mm: gamma} appeal is filed umm
EQEQSG5 gassed in RA No.39-=1-[€35 an t& ”
H :35: flmam, Fast Track Cnurt-II, (‘3h$}n::nj:sag’sa11:_t,

g the appeal and actfing asirlé’ flit jtzdmzeiiti anfi

aw éamfi 534.93 passed am as 30.3-3.3???’:xn”thé:fi§¢*<:;_

aftha Pr}. Civil Judge (Jr. 3321.], . :

'§'1§% appeal oomim an i'cr1.:é':§mh:éian'

I-{anti £92: the
appelhnt. éémpozmdenm. 'I'he:re *3

2» :39 made by the

_. substantial qumfion of law
framad 'ms:

3, Tbs: appenamm-an ma zmpxairxtamaeram the

szauri 6.1113. the suit 51% by him for Emmi

injumiimnaamtahcdwrmwixmtlm rwmmmw
&m. by the araiéjudit cftrial
%

X

refisf cf p irgunction on the

buiifli ur mmmmua. men cam: my ammAmM mm»: COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or mmamm may COURT or KARNATAKA §-HGH cow

mart, 1:113 d¢f¢ approached the Icswer
cmxri’: mad the bum judge 9; me Iower i
reawszfi the judmnt of the trial u
the amt nf the plaintifl’ by

– 3;”; the dismissal ‘4’~”V’f ‘tt_ee

appefiam mutt, thfi ‘b%qr;§ this

C9ur£.i1’1thseamn;:i VV

The tiuzn in ‘ch’:

appmi court could
have mgumga trial mm wham. the

madam §}a1e¢§;i f£:3-zaif haéflm trial murt

– Vva,3.17i9’t.”:;ii*+ based an the dar:umam.t
Fg3:..:P§-2§_ .._1’a the: bank mnrtmge document
mbnggramg wanted in favmxr aflanrl

_ .1 . _ 1*:!¢r%@«:V in 3.949.

The &&.a;3p:’r:achsed the vial cnurt snmkirzg 2%
J»:

thatthxséfldantawexwatryiragiayutupawatertank

ta mg was: at’ th: Mia pmpmty by centending that
tfwéfiendants ha’9egot9§aett:p&’r13f.m:vetn thewstof

fir

COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGH COURE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURY OF KARNATAKA MGR COUW

mm? prznpmiy with an addithiosrz mi’ 3 feet
p1a1n’ 1:313′ pkg rein’ nae on the docunmxm
martgags am: w’h1’ch men’ wtablkhad’ 2:I1_af”t’:’v:1′:-‘ % k

rm ayem space er mmmnn peaaaga

defenfianm’ pmpmy ma
name 3%’ tlm said. the
partim and am: tlm arid the suit of
aémittm fim that Em?-29
(1% mt in «mm tr:

the east ‘V’a»§”‘T’.}1¢? yet mam, an ‘so
upset me by takkg up the view

thug §””‘t:érept in, in 3x.1=–29 and said

. be excuafi. It is an t.11’w xwmsazzning,

mu;-munm the apmxfixad by the

. 3 whfia the suit cf the plainfifi
r mg ,1″ mmt csfthe trial cxzuxt…

§wHa%vng%rtithehar@c::u@Ifor-titre:

mdfi3n}m°mflafimga&gtmnughtl2 of%m
the mum haw. am Mm that Ta wmblfihw beyom

fir

WM. VT mmnmm. I-mm L’EJi..%K! 1Qfi Mmamm mm COURT or KARNATAKA Hm: mun? or KARNATAKA I-mm mum” or-” ICARNATAI-(A mm: mm’

(im-.1h’€, ia that, in E–x.P-2§ whfich is the
mwazzad by the $ thmwzm,
mwtixzan arfany open spaoetza m Qf u
. The saris! ducumm:

Margmes fianlc, In the them <21'
mam thtmugh 2:329 open
agsaes :;af'9 {mat in.

pxufifiy, the have guns
an 19- axcrua-e.=’ by observing’
‘£’.hat. Ema»-29. 1: was an!
) £flw:’§f%ct€g’¢tbe to mrmct er rectiifir the
siocumezflnfaxud nnreéo when the
A ‘ ks

up Br stand that flu

in E«x.F-29 arc mt eorrect. Wm

aw cirmzmtmzm appaam’ fa-em
‘ an record, aim’: was no smpe Ear the Inwer
V’ mm-t” to draw the 1 that that is a
sf’ fact that has mp: sum the decument Ex?-

2%. frzmmm, the amum mum View cannnt be

samtaixzad in law as it is totafiy awimt the dwumtazy
earidama plmzaed in E:r:.P~29, Tim judyxt of the lemma

3.’

COURT OF KAQNAYAKA REG}! Cfiflkfffj KfiRNA’?M(fi MGM CQUKT OF KARNATAKK W3!-i COURT OF I(fiaRNA’!’AKA HIGH COURT OF KARNA’fM{A HIGH COUR1

appelmts must: tharefem mquixwes to be

afiéihat nfthe trial court he rmtnred.

$1 In tha rmult, the subsmntfigd

ensridenne Ex,P–2’9.

at’ the
Isww appefiate of the trial

mutt Tam mmml,

. Sd/-.

….. Judge

,,.. 3-

tha iawez aggeiiate ccurt cfiuié fifit have set_

Bflififi tha jufigmant mi the Trial Ccurt an “£h§ 1″a

gr$u&§ t%et Efififi mistgka hag accurraé.

Having haarfi bath sifiaa and éi3£.;aki&g fiate r

cf :32 fiacuaants ta which my attéfitigé wé$_érawn} ~:

E fimfi that ma case is mafia act ts :a§¢§§$ifiér

the ‘via§’ taken my me whi$sw,§i$@g3in§’*@f.°the
aggeai. Therafsre, tha qae$ti%fi 55 matter beifig
ramanéefi ta tha iswax£”駧éi1§;a_ ¢au§t daas hat

srisa. ?hi5 Qxéarffifiaii ifirm part éfié parcel cf

aha srfiérwgéssfifi $fi¥%w§;2§$s.””~~fl

._V VH ‘A ..w¢ iscifég
“*.”M« _____ Ifuiéfig

fififi”