High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Chandrashekar Babu vs Smt Nallamma on 1 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrashekar Babu vs Smt Nallamma on 1 September, 2010
Author: H.G.Ramesh
-1-

R.F.A.NO.1279[201O

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 157 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAME$fi:m" ' 5;  r.- 

R.F.A. NOJ279 OF 

BETWEEN:

1. SR]. CHANDRASHEKAR BABU,.7 

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

2. SR1. SRINIVASARAJU, 
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. '_

3. SR1. KASHI,

AGED ABOUT 32.YEARs.,~--   '

4. SR].   "

AGED    S

5. SMT. f;EEI..AV;tX'i4f£k?S**'¥:I1VI1'A."'uf '  ~ '

AGED ABOUT 65_YEARS'.' ..   

No.5 IS THE w1':rE'AND~.N5~s_.2'qD 4
ARE CHILDREN O'F,LATE

   

 = P.R.I2AI3HAKI21sHNA"s...._..__. «

AND ALL ARE RESIDING AT

'*._RAGHAVENDRA STORES

s.._G.1?_ALY.AjMAiNA'§:;QAD
vE1\zKAf.rEsv.rz_u~2A~TJ.AYoUT
DRC 130, BANGALORE -- 560 029.

 _  "(BY SR1. GAA:GADHARA.s., ADV.)

   NALLAMMA
 ~ W'/O MADALINGAM
 , ' gAe:;ED ABOUT 54 YEARS

No.9--1 , 10?" CROSS
S.G.PALYA
BANGALORE -- 560 029.

 APPELLANTS

 RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADV.)

R.F.A.NO. 1279 (2010

THIS RFA FILED U/ S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT 81 DECREE DTD 22 . O4 .20 1 0 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.63()6/2005, ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDITEONAI,

CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.

THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION.

THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION I’

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOVVING:

This appeal by the defendants/’tenants 3

against the judgment and deereehdatedpp passed
by the Court of XLIV _CI_ty Bangalore
(CCH ~45). i ‘ I I

2. By the Court has
decreed the ‘suit resepondentw-landlord by directing

the appellantsb veto’ and to hand~over vacant

of the”–vsu_It_.schedu1e property Within three

Court has also ordered an enquiry

regardingOvdeterninnation of mesne profits from the date of

the sudtypttllyvhanding over of vacant possession of the suit

= . Olpprotperty. I

Iluearned Counsel appearing for the appellants

“”..submitted that the appeal may be disposed of by

granting four months’ time ie. till the end of December

2010 to the appellants to voluntarily vacate and to

kw/I

R.F.A.NO.1279(201O

deiiver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises

to the respondent/ plaintiff.

4. On the facts of the case, I accept the subm-is_s»;dIiV.j’

made by the learned Counsel for the appelltfints 1

accordingly, the appellants are granted ‘ _

to voiuntarily vacate and to deliver vetcaiit pos.s’essti0i1 5:”

the suit schedule premises to thed’ere:spQnder1t/V’ptétiritiff.

5. Subject to the abcv’e,’A and decree

impugned herein ésihail stahd V

Ifiage