I COURT OF KAI’-INA’¥AKA H¥GH CDBJKTOF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HfGH COU
evidence let in by the parties in er§ei”tegaz§iVe
at e cenclueiem whether the deeeeeed Vdied_ Gee
acceumt cf his ewe. megligee0ee_QreIehO”aceeueee of”
negligence of the apgeliangs.
22. Se far as thie peifit is Cofieerfied, it ie
clear that Bwl wfie hag dfifififigdgbgfbré the Court
by predecimq Eg.Di ie net e_e§e”wifieess. He wee
ea: preeent it “he_ti$e of ieeident. Hand sketch
is prepared by the Qefiertmefifi after the accident.
By mere lookieq late thejhand sketch, emrked as
mX.Dl, this Coast zeehnet eemsifier that the
deceaeefi_died {mi eecouet am? his negligence. In
7 efdef”te give a finding on this issue, we have to
eepreeieieetfiesevieence ef Fee. 1 to 3. Se far as
V” the ‘ev:¢ence of PW} is cencerned, she was not
“«fiepresent”ei the time of the incident. fi%erefere
Omuefivimpertanee eennet be given to be: evidence in
niexdeh to seaside: the negligence of the
AO”aepellants. PW2 is Rueregeuda Eatil whe is the
owner of the land. ficcerding te his witeeee, few
?f
;;$j€ié$i§3ed.
Iudgé
12
in tha resuit, ihe appeal;
costs.
15.
Qarties to bear the
5300 I-91 5_<..<zuS_ mo .5300 10.3 <u_<._.<Z¢do. $9 u.~_3OU $6.3 5.<.–<zuS_ $0 .5300 $0.1 S_<»<zm$_ mmu.,.–..#3OU IDE .5.§w<Zx¢K LD .233…