IN THE HIGH COURT or I<ARNATAI§A ;I%r BANGALORE I I DATED THIS THE 39"' DAY OF ocromm Q THE I~IoI~I*I3LI'«: MR. J1}Sf_I'IC'I?3*- III;ILuwII)I;I;.IIIIIsxII:sII REGULAR FIRST AI§IéEAL NI:-2188 £007 BETWEEN: Narayanappa, Dead by 1.
” ”
S10 ia.teii_NarayanaV I
.IvPxg@£’1_ &b01if1§¥5 yegrs.
Sfo late Nara’y£I:1:fi§5;)§; V .
about [40 ‘years.
;,.AS:Imapda Edi; “” ” ‘V
« .. _ I VWEQ. jate__Narayanappa,
‘ * ganged’ abgut 60 ywrs.
A 1 tr: 3 are residents of
I»Io;1.:, R.T.Street, Bangalore-560053.
N.Radha_,
D/:3 late Narayanappa,
31 years, Rio No.269,
Milk Cc.-tony, Maiiieswaram,
Ban galore.
MAPPELLANTS
(By Sri.Dava:nan1.V.Satyana:*ayan and
Sri.V.Nagaraja Gupta, Advs.)
AND:
S.A.Dam0dar$
Aged about 52 yeam,
SEO Adiramaiah Setty,
Resident ofNo.40f1,
Anchepet, 10″‘ Cross, V
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-560053 ‘
(By Sri.M.1.Alva, ‘
j’=.u’~t=Ié»-|- ”
This of CPC against the
judgment and g’__dg9ree:dt§13.7._Q? O.S.N0.6724f2000 on
the fi}e€of the t3xddi’.’=C3itjr Cjivifand Sessions Judge, Bangalore
de<V:v1*.¢-:.eViz_1gV;;*.~;a_..;_i: it1r'd§cEa:ation£
This for admission this day, the Court
delivefcd the Vfel'101§.rii*.=..g:'-
is by the LRs., of the defendant being
ordcr dated 13.7.07.
aggfiaém by the judgment and decree: passed by the V Addl.
‘ r Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangaiorc in O.S.No.6724/’00 by
2. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking for declarationthat he is
the absolute owner of the plaint schedule that
defendant is the tenant in respect of the
bearing old municipal
situate at Rangaswamy Temple
No.25, Bangalore-53 to North to
South 5′. originarlgplaigltiftl initiated eviction
proceedings the Small Causes
Judge, sa_l2;2;94. Sinee the
relationship of landlord and
tensnt, the plaintiff to seek for 3
declaralioo that he Ai;:.ltl:e’lllowner of the property before the Civil
thils”‘~-mgard, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking
l A Tdeellgatretfiehtsli
ll According to the plaintiff, property in question was
–»p§’ehased by one Dodda Basappa, flue predecessor in title of the
plaintiff in the Court auction during 16.6.1941 and
subsequently, after his death in 1973 plaintiff purchased the suit
Thereafter. the trial Ceurt, afier hearing the pemes and on
the materiai evidence on record, has decreed the*’~s1iitdg;jf
plaintiff. Hence, this appeal by the Z V’ ”
4- On hearing the C0u:iVsei_Vuf0r the respeLefisfc.._,paHrt;ies;
found that it is not a case fer edztiissien. He9:u:e.eiAt taken up
ibr final disposal at the
5. of the trial Court wherein
the the defendant has not
prcydueed ../jevidence much less the so called
agrwment ti) séeli Saiddto Have entered into by his father and the
edgier property in questien and admittedly
thaneepaam has produced all the required documents
befereaflie (inert ie? the rent receipts as per Exs.Pi 3 to P18 and
A’ fiieattemment notice as per Ex.Pl2. It has noted that piaintifi
Aitedaiinot be placed in a disadvanmgestaus position for non-
prodtzetian of the sale certificate. Noting the judgment of the
Apex Court repeated in4AIR 1970 SC 2037 that the Court
.3?’
while canfirsning the order passed by the learned V
cm: Judge, Bangalcme dated 13.7.07, the appml is
the threshold itself as devoid of merits, ‘
Learned Counsel for ‘appellémj; ‘hgfi for
permission to prefer an appml L. Cauzéfl In the
circumstances, lcavcis rcjéfiééd. l l
Bkp.