Sri Madesha S/O Late Nanjundaiah vs Sri Nigappa on 21 February, 2009

IN THE map: COURT 0:? KARNATAKA AT BAN{§AL{4J:§§.§"   * *

DATED THIS THE 21%'? DAY 0F.I.i)*§'."'   

BEFORE H . %
ma HONBLE I5/IR.J{} S 'F£s§§E    :3
WRIT PE*rIT10N;'No.92g_é}'f2£)Q?_jelwclyé) 
BETWEEN: V  «  

Sri Madesha   =_  
S/0. Late Nanju3mia_f  @LTha.t1i.inadi'vMotaiah
R/cs. Game cmkx ""-"an,a1<ej.::1    ' _ 
G.M.Street, Pe--tcM2iJ§1va?1i'TdW11 A 

District: Mandya-.' "fl;   ...Petitio.t1er

(By Sri   %

AND:

1. 5:: rgringégppg' - 

_" 53/ Q. '1' ajamaii «N_Ha__;3.jv't1ndappa
_ '"54 
'   Rf G.M.Stt'eet Pete
 MaIa1{aili.V" = . V V 

  2. 

 ci, Yajaman Chikkanna
» Aged "57 years '
A' * Rest M do -

   Rama

S)' 0. Lab: Amsiboriah

Aged 41 years

Kudurc Unthuraiahana Theta, G.M.S-meet
Malavalli Town.



ORDER

The dispute between parties is relating to

of Sn’ Dandina Maramma temple, situate at _

petitioner has made an application for glantcf u

injunction. The trial Couzt acceptegl the five

granted an order of temporazy injunefion

defendants from interfering _V
performing pooja at the was
challenged by defe1V1dantsAVViQ T’.T’§’he appeal of
the defendarltse’ Vpetitioner was
before this ‘

2. age; 39.05.2003, this Court
has made A «’ ‘”

A L “was a concurrent finding

3fz§1:ci.V%_ and” x’fl”:e….;3lainfifl’-zespcmdent has been

-. it would not be appmpriate for

V interfere with that finding, while

‘ A flowers 1.1f 3 1 15 of C.P.C.

)\>.