% ~ (3? SR! N HARIPRASAD, ADE,
1 RSA 255 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT 01:’ KARNATAKA, BANGALd.£é’E:”A1’F;-J: {T
DATED mxs THE 09% DAY oF_MAR_:::1»+: ‘gooéfi °’: *
BEFORE I A’ . ‘. 4’
THE i-{ONBLE MR.JUS’I’ICE H}§%:.,_;4AALL_I”»?I%: ‘
NELAvANK1_,H.Q:3Lz,_ ‘
SRINIVASI”-‘UR TALLFK, ¢ 4 %
KOLAR D18itR1<:1'5e3f3'-.101». % %
v 4- p …APPELLANT
{av 31:21 Y 12 sAb'As:'vA. REUDY; ADV.,)
é;I~I_1:)}{ –
SR1 KRI’SH«NAPPA §:.;\s;,
53/ 0 VE1§3KATA.:>i¢*.é=g’
AGEB A800′? emrmns,
Q’ _f’«.RuESuI.DING ATREDEAMFALLI VILLAGE,
% “PiEI..A*<.-VWKI i=IOBLi,
'p__"'S_RiNiVASP'UR TALUK,
" L §<c.L;aR DiS'I'RIC'§' .- 553 101.
% ; RESPONQENT
"FOR A GOPALALAH, ADV.,)
VLWK
5 RSA 2265[gO0€S
trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintifii ll " 2
judgment of the trial Court, the Al
R.A.No.9}/2061 before the lower .
impugned judgment, the lower the
appeal, set aside the 1. and
dismissed the suit of appeal by
thc plainfifi ._ _ .
5. ” the side and perused
the _’fal1£)wing substazatiai question
of law will alrise for’ in this second appeal:–
_ _’ E …….t}a.,e lower appellate Conn
A ‘ V. an illegality in no! considering the entire
evidence and the pleadings
‘ aft recx)f’Ci?_”lV’
A’ vH’B0tI:1 in the pleadings and in the evidence, the
specifically contends that he is in unauthorised
V “§eéiif3atien of one gtmta of land in Sy.No.14 to the north of
V schedule prcperty. The defendant in the written
:.\w/ =\_
13 R81′: 226${‘.2006
Ordemd accordingly.
No order as to costs. 4′ A’ ” V ‘
dh*