IN THE HIGH comm' arr KARNATAKA, BAs¢:§ALcr§L3é .
DATED THIS THE 13th DAYQF " - _: "
BEFORE} 1n . ?V_
THE HQNBLE MR.Ju$T1cE +r§;B1LLA:5:~g§':'§V_:'V
% w.;>. No.56s1/J',2;€1i§:;$'{GM~CPzjj':
Between: " X
Sri.B.Thippaiah " _ f
S/0 Ch1kka1l1Ba:sa1aI1 "
Aged about 55 ._
Ambcdkar . '
R/o I'il<:I'lagt"lI1t6,"--.
Challakere 'I'a1I'1~.'--.¢:,{, . ~ _
.. PETITIONER
4.
(By sn.p.n%.mm,a %
AND: " %
SIi.BgMaI2aiah " _ _
', Agnd about .57». years,
Teachciy, " ,
R/at Vii1a'1a.N8E'am,
Sha$watha--N_flaya
Challakczrt: Town,
f Chihudinrga District. .. RESPONDENTS
–1-.-
1 This W.P. is filed under Article 226 & 227 of the
Qbnstitufion of India, praying to quash the order passed by
“the: Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Challakcm in O.S. No.4/2006
” D’I’.25.3.2008 v1dcAnncxurc. E.
by,
rejecting the application. He also _
application was filed to = the “=
property and it would have A
appreciate the evidence *
therefore, the trial
the application. that the T
impugned order
5. of ‘et:§«;zis:dered the submission
made V the petitioner.
I’ do “merit in the submission of the
learned fol’ tile petitioner, for the reason, the
l V. ” oonsideration the fact that the
in the nameof the defendant is not in
tlisptlte there is no dispute with regard to the
.. also and the other facts like possession
ll construction need to be proved by the petitioraer,
‘ rejected the application. I do not find any error or
illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.
Ll/,
Therefore, in my considered view, there is .
this writ petition and Ilcnoe, it is Liablf: to K ”
‘7. Accordingly. it is dis>I,I_1:iss:a:$tE..A
Bss.