Lingaiah vs Veerabhadraswamy Temple on 20 October, 2008

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED mm 11m 20m DAY or 0CTOB$§i'. 

BEl"0RE

TI-IE HONBLE MR. JU$*fiCE«B;$.Pfiffl;   

___Ig_EGuL__4;_n I-'mm: 56 dggmg  k 

BETWEEN:

1. SriLinga1'ah,  
Aged about 54 years,  ._ 
S/olate Basavaiah,  V j 1   __
Agriculturist, 'R / o.A1'u"r -'lillagé', ._ 1  Q' 
Honz1ava1Ii~Ha;>:};;2i, Tiptur " = .. 

2. Smt.Bar;da.t"ih.!1a§""         
Aged..a.bout_SG--:ycars;  ' "
W/c>.1ate Basavmfan,  j  
R/o.'rAl1zr' Viilagc-,L Hoi11__m*;a11i Hobli,
Tipt1lFT8.11.Ik.  "  V.  " 

Si:r:mLAdea; : e:1$§:'d mi;  L.Rs.

 A (8) %%%%%  8'

V  .VMajor,' W/o. Sri Lingaiah;

" .85} Sri  Séidananl damurthy,
*-«...Maj'o'r., S/o.Sri Lmgaiah;

  A. (C) 2\.L.Yogesh,
 _ "Major, S/o. Sri Lingaiah;

Am) Sri A.L.M8I1j11I1atl"1,
T Major, S/o. Sri Lingaiah;

 



2

All are residents of A1111' Village,

Byranayakanahally,
Pionnavalli Hobli,

Tiptur Taluk.  ~ 

(By Sri P. B.Raju & Associates, Advs.)

AND :

1. Sri Veerabhadraswamy Teznplef 
By its Representatives as _
Dharxnadharshi Rangegowde.  _V

2. Sri Rangegowda,
Aged 90 years,   
S/o.Iate Shivammnjegowda,  .  
R/o-Alur Village. H<:m1aV:ai1i Hsbli.  s
Tipu1rTa1Li_k. fir' _. _   V _'  "  RESPONDENTS

(By  Adv. for C/R.)

_appea1_ "  Section 96 of CPC against
the Judgner_;t.and  dated 01.10.2002 passed in
O.S.I\§o.v93/1992 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) &

.---__JMFCi,,_fl'iptur,""partly decree-'mg the suit by granting

restricted' .inj~:;nc:tion and dismissing the suit for relief of

de.eI;arati,on title by adverse possession, the relief of

pem3ai1et1f._i:1jj1:ncfion, the relief of wncellation of revenue
entdes. 'j_ 

 appeal coming on for final hearing, this day, the

' H H   deiivered the followingzz

JUDGMENT

T ” Learned counsel appearing for the appefiants tiles :1

A. Iflmo dated 20.10.2008 stating that in another suit filed. in

O.S.No.-42/2006 by the respondent herein, both the appeflants

and respondent have entered into a

compromise decree was passed on 18.07.2008 _

rest the controversy raised in this appeal.

2. Learned counsel appealing for

that in View of the

consideration of the present 011
unnecessaxy. Learned fnays for
dismissal of this appeal as

3. Memo filed of the memo fibd
and in of me, this appeal is dismissed

as havmg’ beco’ emev H the light of the oompnom1se’

2006 by the learned Civil Judge

sdI- ,
Iudqe %