IN THE HIGH comer on KARNATAKA AT
nxrmn THIS THE 12" DAY or AUGU£3?f"
nmmag;
THE Horrnm: nan. JUSTICE
mscsmmzous sscoxn' T.a 1*mAI;' £59.35 imJ1 = V "
BETWEEN:
CHIKKA ANJANAPPA, _ iv
Since deceased, by his L.Rs.,-I V '
1. A
Aged abo'i3tv_?O Ycars',' .
Wig late Chfi{ir.a'Anje;g1appa.
2. C.Méd:a_iahv, A .
abbut ED 5'
V, 0 late Anjanappa.
V j "Agé:d_ 78nbb1;t'47 Years,
13:; Anjanappa.
_ 4. ""4-Sm.i;C.:'}:a_'§amma,
Ageci«._ about 40 Years,
.A D/'<;~-- late Chikka Anjanappa.
V' All residents of Gubbalala Village,
Subramanyapura Peat,
Uttarairxalli Hobii,
Bangalore: South,
BANGALORE.
{By 53%-6:. M $i'--§'i%43»""\<*3:r'¥"ri\J<'3»%.°»«i'L, Adv.)
'W
.. APPELLAHT8.
AND:
Mr.Ramaiah,
Aged about 50 Years,
S/o late Dodda Anjanappa,
R] at Gubbalaia Village,
Aged about 53 Years,
Subramanyapura Post,
Bangalore: South, V V _ "
BAKGALORE DISTRICT. " RESFOKDEKT.
(By Sxifiagaiah, Ad§:;}..'_
aa;.*_a:_"-x,~1'.',_:é¢__*__ T' '-- W
This :Rn1e 1(u) read with
sectionsfioé 1Q€)4VV'of.jtfhé:§x_Cod€VV;)f Civil Procedure, against the
Judgmenfahd 'Dm;~e£ej1Ljvd.§a;t;a;§'-2'2--;o1.2009 passed in R.A.No.3/ 2009
on the file of Judge, Bangalore, setting aside
,1'-_he _J:1_;dgm¢nt V _____ _'F)ecree dated 20.11.2006 passed in
}.§98_on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.),
Bangalore, dizecting the Lower Court to
mgard to identity of the property claimed by the
"th_é:rcin, than permit the panics to lead evidence and than
am§a¢%;he case afivesh in accordance with law.
This Appeal is coming on Admission this day, the Court
'" -. jjdaxivma the following:
W
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the plaintziff cha}iengiI;g_
and Dccnee dated 22.01.2009 passed in R.A.No.3′)::2eQ§ the
of the Principal Bistrict Judgqg’ “”Banga19re.5
Bangalore, reversing the Judgment ‘A ‘
passed in O.S.No.565/1998 ofi file 5!” the ‘(Evil Jfidge
(.Jr.[}11.), Bangalore Ru1*a1;_.l.j)ist1’i«;tt,-~§;:3.5.$’;iI1ge’:a1ore. —
2. This appeal is filed ‘iaéai miéifigfifiifiafivcs csf the 0ngm’ ‘ ai
injunction against the
defemafit, ‘who ~ in this appeal. in the said
procc¢divng$, ‘i;h§ not cxamzine himself, in his piace, his
No.3 in this appeal, gave cviécnce.
T032.’ fividcnce of the plaintiffs son, the said . suit was
aemea.
‘ 3. 4 “I’11éA.J€ifi’igmmi1t and Decree passed by the Trial Court was
K x V by the defendant in R.A.No.3/ 2009 an various gI’D11Zi}.(iS,
_ ~__oi:E:’Of:Whi<:h is that the plaintifi' dici not step into the witness box
give evixzicnce regarding the matter which are Within his
" cxcius:iv::': imawledgvc. Other gonads are improper, including
recording csf evidence, non–fi'aming of proper issue regarding
identification. of plaint schedule property.
urged by the defendant in the said appeal,
Couzt aiiowed the appeal of the ci.efe:=;iidaiit,'
back to the Trial Court for :reco;tii11gA:ex,riEi'ei_IA.1ce rm
dis-P086 of the matter, in " '
4. Though the nemami efvveviiiencc of the
plainfifi may be wrong, the V Court in
remanding the for the pmpose of
framing an of the prepcrly and
aflowing in that behalf, cannot be
found rauie, Henee,= ‘gem’: in this appeal fileci by the
legai mp1’ese1ii;a_tive;sVVi;f plaintifii There is no illegality or
the J1idgi!:1i{f:flt’,PaSSCd by the First Appellate Court in
ixfiatter back to the Trial Court for fraxmng an issue
and .f;+___ for bath the parties to lead the
r:\_vide11Ce–. zegexzijeig idenafieaaen of piaint schedule property.
.. AA iefencewthe appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge
AGV.