High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Jayamma vs Sri B K Narayanaswamy on 7 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma vs Sri B K Narayanaswamy on 7 November, 2008
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
in was area ccanr or xnnuamaxa as aaNa§1¢ngDD?J"_

-1-

DATED THIS THE 07?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 209$ * 

BEFORE

was nontnns ua.JUsmxca_s.fi;s§:xanAgax3n1 Df"~ 

CIVIL 9ETIT:oN"§D.51/20D?=-X

BETWEEN

1

(BY

SMT JAYAMMA ;' =~': _Q-
w/0. LATE RAMACHANDRA'. , '*
UPPERPET«ua*- ; '2 .'*"
KOPPA -i57:=126=« _
cH:KMDGA;uR~D;s$,, x

PETITIONER

1300

sf: 9§A3aAgfiD L SfiET$YL $DV)

 

.§SRx.B K"NARAYA§AswAM¥

~_'sAe,Va KRISHNAMURTHY
,? MAJOR,}LAND HOLDER
"'RfQ{&BALEHITHLU,

.KANUR v1LLAGE

D"'BALEaDNRuaU hosLI.
H.N R PURA TALUK

SHIKMAGALURE DIST.

2 STATE OF KARNATAKA,
_fDEPT.OF REVENUE,

BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BANGRLORE.
... RESPONDENTS

Sri H V RAMACHANDRA RAD, ADV FOR R1
SRI.B.B.GOUDAR, HCGP FOR R2)

*3.

THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED U/0.44 Eden»;

or cpc, PRAYING TO rERMIr THE PET:TIoNaaa?ofF:L£3
Rm No.584/2007 AS AN INDIGENT PERSON
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE nA1*E:1:a*1_6–:2–‘2no:«3.i
PASSED IN O.S.NO.222/2001, oregrnr r1″i.1~:.~—-o;=i “=.COURf_I’
or THE CEVIL JUnc:.E(sR.nIvN.)I-Air”cn:i:AMAGALL:;R,–V«VIN;

THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUI$Y,f

THIS PETITION coxvxrm ONVXFCR

DAY, THE’. COURT MADE’. THE Eo:;;ir,;QwING;.__ 2
0mm ‘ ”

This Civil Petition } ififiifiiled seeking

permission to» file “anf appeaio ohailenging the

judgmentiwiv ‘V dé§;~,£e§’i».,;§assé’¢;’i” in os .No. 222/2001 on

the fiie V.offlf then ;Civil Judge (Sr.Dn),

Chikamagalur; Ami i%¢§%i%V’fM&f&n”
__vx r A.% . Q .

i 2: In this proceedinge a direction was given

A’toq the fiearned Government Pieader to secure a

re@ort;>of:}the Tahsildar regarding” means of the

V*petitioner herein. Further a direction was also

“igiyen to the Registrar (Judicial) to hold an

“uni enquiry in the context of the report and on the

u”vversion of the parties with regard to means of

the petitioner to pay the court fee. Pursuant to

W’;

the directions issued by this Court the Tahsildar

has filed a report to the effect that” the

petitioner herein has no means to “pay” the

requisite court fee to pursue the ap§eal»Qfile§’u

challenging the judgment and7’decree_lpassedggih

OS.No.222/2001. In the mean?}chi:;l._’e}’iV

the Registrar (Judicia;y,x iSl’_alsolV’received,’wl

wherein a finding is given to the effect that the
petitioner has no iaeansi t0} Pfiyi the court fee.

Hence, there is sufifieientjgroune to allow this

civil petition and hermit the petitioner herein
to sue as an indigent person.

3;’ in. the meanwhile, the parties also

1=euhfiitted’gthat one of the reason for the

petitiener not being able to pay the court fee is

that” one and only property standing in hex:

“egeaee; is attached in the original suit and as

such, she is not in a position to raise the

requisite funds on the surety of the said

property. However, in the course of arguments in

h¢””‘7

-4-

the civil petition a suggestion was made by the

Court to the parties to explore the poséioiiityx

of settlement. Accordingly, the parties who wét§f”*,

present before the Court and”thei; Cognsel nao sg

discussion, wherein an understanding wss_ariiveds

at between the parties snd in terms of the said”

understanding a Memorandum of Compromise petition

is filed. -~ – e g». ~__»–s

4. In View of the aforesaid oevelopments in

this p.’et1t_ic;;+:e,tV _tirx2iVs~.§::’i«s{iJt_ petition is allowed.

Std/-‘
Judge

‘ti’:jNo!*,