High Court Karnataka High Court

Mahmood vs Sri Somashekharaiah on 28 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mahmood vs Sri Somashekharaiah on 28 July, 2008
Author: Jawad Rahim
1

m THE HIGH cow: 0+' KARNATA?§r'%.:A'." "»".'Ej': J:   EL
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GiJ.LBARGA" E Cf     E  E

DATES THIS me 23?" mix 0;: 3.tj;LY.._'éa.t§s  

seFGRE"g"

THE §-f0N'Bi..E MR.JUS'EI'E,E zgwétr s§AH1ME 

BETWEEN:

. -  .,{'8;%E.j§ri;€'-ES£}521E&A'§;f{REDDY, ADV. - ASSE

MAfiMOQD%j« =

Sim,Evfv1'FeEiAéQQBE.S+"x§BAQWEAH,

Mmcm; .E<j:«c:<:: 7fMECH.AF1IC,.
a.;i0..vI::V,:a:~mG.aF:;EEV    E
BIDAR aANEGAj_EoRE_«REQAD,
SHAH§'xPUR TOWN' ' 

K 0:5? Ga: ,L_.VBARGA;.--S8'5 223

  a    

1' 

U)

4 'sR;, .SEQF-1§§SHEKHARfiJAH
  sis. KANTAWA

A5532) : 61 YEARS

 = Vr""'.'0CV'C: AGRIL AN9 Busmss
" 'sax SHARNAIAH

SXQ. SO?v?ASHEf(HARfixiAH
AGED : 41 YEARS
Qflfli AGRIL ANS} BUSINS8

SRE SHIVANAND

S/"G. SQMASHEKHARAIAH
AGED f 22 YEARS

&iL

 APPELLANT
NT)



2
GCC: AGREE. AND BUSINSS

4 SR1 VEERAYYA   
S/C5. KANTAYYA I
AGES : 55 YEARS 
QCC: AGRIL AND BUSINS5

5 SRISIBRAMAWA
smvaeaawa 
AE§Ef}:31YEAR$__"*~._   _
ace; AGREL ANS B'US'§.'§é.s'__S§VT. . A  
SR1 :<swTA':~YA  _  : 
S/G.VEEE'R:-'?1?zf5fA    
.£\GE9__.:'C§;$_'{EVAg.RS   %
902:: Ageaia A:~s::« s*%s:Ns3 A

{J3

AL:':é.;G§L%sH;é§&i'iaé%u.§;:s3:'si%223
  %      %  aespomosms

(83: Sri i.iF¥T;E,_:'_<S§-i_ R;%;~a:;i.i;;=:2}%§fr§%L Aw. ma cm)
3.3.5

; is mE”9’%:ig’s.1t:a er cpc Acamssr THE Juaervserw

1-f “‘A§*«I§—VDE’-TREE m’.5;’1;2«:m? mssea 124 R.A.NQ.84/’£14 on
T;§«§%AFzLE.%%:}r=%%A%MTHE CIVIL sums (saws), SHGRAPUR,
‘Ms:mmsV4j.AAr%SHAHAPUR msmxssms ms APFEAL AND

c::¢*eEza:vi*:r~i:3 jfrfia JuaeMENT AND 952325 91.25.13?
9AssEa;::~: as.s.m.7.r9s on ‘:39 ms or T%~iE awn. mace

V -V (3R..E3N);.SHAHAPUR.

jlészipeai coming on far admissim”: this day’, the court:

— agiivarvad the foilowing

.”LLi.Q_G_M..E_flI
This secend abpeai is fiied by the defendant Er:

O.S.?f98 which WES decreed Vida judament dated

fir,

3
25.1.1??? by the Civii Judge (fiurzier Eiivrm), Shaha;*2u.r.,.___and

canfirmed in a.A.84/{:4 vide judfiment dated 5..§;2$?3′?.:’bn

the fiie cf Civii Budge (Samar E-ivn.), Sfisrapfif,

Shahapun

2. Laarned cmmfiei far the’agf;peiiént §$ 3

3. Perused the !”eC€:=1f’§§S. ‘.Et”‘réy*aéé’é-s_ tha€”r»:.>-.5a:33nden¥:s-1
am 2 herein v’i2., ‘S§c_fi’zés.i€é§§a:%§ivé:iF;.::’Shar:1aiah fiieé

o.s.s4;a4 cia_i.:”s.’:z~i::}fa g?_- thz;é.? ;}1j” 9″f.Vfie’_.f¥.”‘_EV’V3{V’ mg am we. 1-1~3,r1o

{nevi Nt’¥.£’iv.7V.:j3§5’3.«:i’fi~”sa§fi.'{§\hi3 ” 4’G’V~V–:1}aerth-south and 60’east–
west si{isaié_d fthéir preperty anfi by virtue cf

titie, they Vxar-;: ifi p:av$sfa§’S’iA:§~h and enjmimerst sf the same. it

f;hatAAf’he….;:_.ra::;3er’ty maasuring 39′ X 60′ tawards

safit?eAf:a§fa§§én to the share cf piairstiffs 1 ta 3 and an

e§r;£é:’:t r*:V*’1.é.;»f:.?5’sj_:._aV:9’i’:v’*#e 16′ X 60′ tawards fiéftfi had faiien to the

.__shar’é ..s:v:?}_pivai:1tiffs 4 ta 6 5%,? virtue of 3 farniiy partition

V’ “V.I%j”r:fffé4:<§Aed Her; 12.4.1§£-':6.

' The defenéanis were said to be strangers having

zécfzhérsg ta as with the praperty. But they set Bi')

Efradaséerzéent right in the saifi preperty.

\

Lil

awdenfie wafihy of acteptance was "pia::efi_' Ey f.i%*av&

defendants to negaie the ciacumentary 'presf

piaifiiéfis.

3, The triai wart ée::ree<s$~'t'r:.§ suVi'*i.*._'v~é'i:i;h :i Es"%';aj."',F:';_'zfjrf:*:e_}'::'

ihé first agmeiiate muff. '¥'ha i':§¥*3a;?u§V_'i.%i this awééi
are reiating ta facts nét*««.€fT:%'sp;ifiec§_.V "$x;§:..%A'A:s':;;b_staniiai cziuestiarz

cf iaw is inéicatefi farV.v:c:isi*s*éra:§.§fi 'i§:V't–%*;§s" apaaeai. 1 am

satisfied i'n1e_. fin_8ir:_§ ;r_§;f' fa'::E;"§ recerded by the

mantis :§:i§éw–jfi§§{'3fib;*.a'."::c Ségjifisfantiai questicr: czf iaw

arises.

_ §. V, ‘Thie amééa-éiifsg Vdisaffiissed at fine stage of admiasicm.

.    sd

'I

Iufiqa