IN THE HIGH COURT OF _KARNA’I’AKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY 01:’ ocToBE:g2 9658:.’
BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE MR. JUs’r1c:E’;~:M,ANs§i§i§A’J%%’L}’
M.F.A.NO.12-490 or-*
BETWEEN :
1 SR1 S szmsa KUMAR
S10 3 NARAYANA <:.:§a'~~ET'rY'
gem: ABOUT 25 YEARSA _
R/AfI'NO.15G,5Ti-I S'{'RIEE'I" " : . _
JOGUPALYAM , UI,.SG€).Rf- 2
BANGALORE' I ' APPELLANT
(syn:/3; 5 Aé;r:«3<wcI–.é;f:*z«is, Anv:Jl::m*Es)
AND: ' ' V' 4' .' '
1 Sim' sgzm . ~ %
Vwu/0 G0'J;N§;ARAJ_
_§_AGE.D ABOUT 36 'YEAR'S
. ' 'N(';.§,,12,.__A CROSS-RSAD
PIPELINE,' cm':-I MAIN mm
. " 1. .J.n"1_.¥§&G~A1~2,. 'xureuaaaanam
CA§{J'*!ERYNAGAR
"'.%BAN'Q2a:,oRE–56o O86
" SR: K VENKATESH
S10 'ILATE KEMFAIAH
A. , _ AGED ABGUT 30 YEARS
" V "R/AT No.2?
..i3Ai’~l’l’§~iAi2APALYA,
NAYANDANAHALLI
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE
ii}
3 SR} K smmzvas
s/0 LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED A800′? 45 YEARS
RfA’I’ 190.2′?
Ramdas as his general power of attorney. L”
Ramdas had formed sites and tra.nsferred
different persons as general power’ of.
Kempaiah. Similarly, suit site
said Ramdas in favour of of ‘finder ‘V
general power of attorney 1938’.” ft} is the
case of the plamfiff regstered
sale deed weer Thus,
the owner of the suit
defendarios”bIoéere”eontended that the general
power of of Kempajah namely Ramdas had
;-3. suit property by executing general
in favour of one Govindaraju. This
docizmerlt executed on 16.5.1998. Therefore, the
of”o.laintiff, on 23.5.1998 the possession of suit
v _V ‘ sehedule property was delivered to him is prima facie
.é 1 L
The learned trial judge on consideration of
pleadings and documents has held that pl.aintifi’ has
W» C&\ -~.w9\ ‘”~0L 7′
failed to make out a prime faeie case. The
has held, the father of plajntifl’ had
Ramdas as his general power of a_t.to1f141ey._-‘ ‘The: K ”
plaintiff had no transferable ”
schedule property to co11vey’!Vc1v:v1fe..ea1Itie to
On re-consideration of ‘doeuxeients it
is not possible to hold’ made out a
prima facie temporary
inju:nc1:Lon.; that his father
had Sllit schedule property and
he nransfmed to plaintifi’ has to be
_ estatslished by during trial. The documents
__defendants have come into existence at
iwhen there were no disputes between
V –V Tile1’efore, I do not find any groundsfi to
‘A ‘V V’ with the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal
isedismissed.
Sd/-e
ludge