L
RSA No.1 16929006
INTfifllflflfiiCOURT(H?KARNATAKA
CHRCUTTBENCHIMFDHMGNMAD
DATED THIS THE am DAY 012' DECEMBER, 2059- A.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT:cE B.S.l*"_42'.¢&'I'_1:i['V:v
REGULAR SECOND APPEA1f2vd;A. 1. 1:69:/''2-_( 50.6V , "
Between:
SMTFATHIMA BI,
w/o MOI--IAMMED'ALI._ SAB _
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, '-- ;
G.M0HAMM_ED__AL1;sAB,I": V
S/O SABANNFL-' ;
AGED
MOHAMOOD, _
S/Q DAU1.AT:3A_BA 'v ._
AGED ABOUT 44
DRIVEER. »
ALL ARE R13SjD'ENi* OF
"._RAY1ARA om, GANGAVATHI POST
~. 3 AND i1fALu_I§, KOPPAL DIST.
{B;?_ Adv)
A. V ' "3/0 CHANDRASHEKARAPPA
' AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
And:
A[§O--E§§I JAMBANNA
R/O RAYARA ONI,
GANGAVATHI POST AND TALUK,
APPELLANTS
KDA NOJ 109/£UUO
JUDGMENT
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the
judgment and decree dated 2′?’.O1.2006 passed by the Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gangavathi, dismissing R.A.No.44/2()Q5_}”.!The
appellants herein were the defendants 1 to 3 in _
Respondent No.1 was the plaintifffm
convenience, parties are referred byl=__the-irAr*anks-_in- the’-e__tri.:;;lA
court.
2. Respondent No.1 herein suit ll ‘o,’ts.’1ire.if;42 / 1997
seeking relief of declaration de_icla.reil’ was the absolute
owner also for possession of
the sarnefl–Aldeclaration_ilWas”also sought to the effect that sale
deeds dated l.O.I19V93i’*.,3nid”il16.10.1993 executed by the City
V’municipalgifiouncil, lGan*gavathi, in favour of defendants 1 and 3
“ee’speetive1y_”v}ere’ “not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff
tract-:dl”tit1ei suit schedule property bearing Municipal
lN.os.3-h–..1;IlH’.} (on No.3-5~17), 3»5~150 (ozd No.3–5–18), 35-151
{jo1ci’Nn.3–5~19), 3-5452 (Old No.3-5-20) and 35-153 (Old
on the basis of a registered will dated 21.09.1990
RSA No.1 169/2096
property given by the 4”? defendant–Municipality in fav-our of
defendants 1 and 3 (appellants herein) and that he
seen any documents in respect of the said prope:j’ti*es.,:
is also recorded by the trial courtin._paragrap’h..fV2-4° it
judgment holding that the suit sched’iile:;’pI*riperty’was
in Rayara Oni area and not Pinjarayvadi area as i’Wasi._’clear–‘from’e. V
Ex.D2 and Ex.D8 sale deeds defendants.
This finding recorded affirmed by the
appellate court byAre–appreeiation-Voiflthe This court in
exercise of the?._’;jiii.ii:eelic.tionieéinieriieeliVii’/s 100 of the cpc
cannot ernbarlg the materials in the
form of come to a different
conclusion.
4., No stiibstantial ciq’t;esVt_ion. of law arises for consideration in
this “the appeal fails and therefore the same is
dismisc»_e’C1–.._; V
Sol/«Q
JUDGE