IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATALKA AT BANGALORE': , Dated: This the 16"! day of December 2_QiT:8«' A4 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE V.JA»GANE§ATHAN4 REGULAR SECOND APPEALai%!o;:1.é3.2,3[g Q£§8- 2 " BETWEEN : SR1 LOKESHA S[().MALLASHE'1*1_'Y~ _ 41 YEARS, R] 0. HUSIN.) AND JMFQ, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE ' APPEAL AND CONMRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE DATED 24.0 1 . 2005 PASSED iN 2 OS.NO.157/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRLCIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) NANJANGUD. THIS APPEAL COMING on FOR ADMISSION mar, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING_:...._' fl I. K JUDGMENT
Heard the Ieemed counsel ;f-‘o’r’i:he
the concurrent findings of the -A-A1)_e1o\v9″eI’e
in question and also in «of ti1e s1.1§jmi’:sei61is
made, the appeal is ‘tiisposed ‘c§1_” e:_ the edm’ission
stage itself.
é;._ : by the plainfifi for
permanerfize of the suit properties
“3y,Ne;,2{):2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas
1 measming 1 acre 1 gunta of land
village, Nanjangud Taluk. The
I_basis foeme suit is pI.§.”e°§ to the suit property being
fli1VeL”a11cestra1 property of the pla;i11tiff’s father and
revenue records indicating the same. It is the plaint
‘4 allegation that the defendant tried to cut one Banni
tree situated in Sy.No.203 and inspite of the
3»
3 o
in4_
complaint gven, as nothing , the suit ca1_1_1_e
to be instituted.
3. The defendant:’s stand eras that» 3
Tribunal gmnted 30 guttnas of ;_s
the defendant by order dated 7,4. and
of the defendant was in ‘ 30
guntas earlier and ‘ofthe plaintifi’
namely 4 shares
and out cf 10 guntas
and = each and the
phoded into four sub
divisicns, fzamelje S$y_.t1\?e~;:202/ 1 , 202/ 2, 202/ 3 and
” _20i?j/$1. ;_..:Thereferev,—-t}ie defendant contended that the
to get the revenue records in his
favefir, is to take over the land of the
3-«._’__*-.deferxdatit by filing the present suit and suppressing
é facts.
4. The trial court: framed four issues and
both parties led the evidence and materials issues
}
were answereé against the plaintiff and the suit: was
dismissed. The appeliate court confirmed the
findings While dismissing the plaintifi’s appeal’,H__’4}~.
5. ‘Though learned counsel for K
argued that the courts below: ‘1
dismissing the p1aintifi”s cla_i»m_’ ,
the judgnent of the couIts’V”Vt’et.V1:<_%io\§sr, IV" a
specific finding has :4 the ehfite suit
schedule property pla1'11tifi"s
father and which had
been éiven father by the Land
Tlibunal .11et.._ of while efiecting the
V. the Apmperfies among the brothers of the
and in addition to this, both courts
h'a§fe'te3se a finding that what was given to
';_t:he father was in Sy.No.202/1 and not in
A 54. In arrivizng at this conclusion, the
V' decumcnts produced by the parties have been
V '4 censiciered and I do not see any emor committed by
£99»
E.»
5
the courts beiow in taking the said View in the light of
the over all evidence on record.
6. As the concurrent findings are ”
the evidence on record and no 1
drawn that the finding is j; _
unreasonable, I see no subst_antié1l_v”q11esti,<:ai1q..ef 1
arising fer consideration. _ ' flleiyefore
stands dismissed. Ho_\$€eve1%, "oi),SezfVations made
herein above shall not 'come. in the the plaintiff
{3StabHS}'1§I}.g:1'iei$ in with law.
SCI/-3
Fudge