High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Saleemunnisa D/O Baba Sab vs Zehara Bi W/O Baba Sab on 6 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Saleemunnisa D/O Baba Sab vs Zehara Bi W/O Baba Sab on 6 November, 2008
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

Datsd: This the 63* day of N0v€n1ber_.53:i3{}$'V.'  'V' 

BEFORE

THE HGEKVBLE MRJUSTICE" *«}'.;5f,F';fi§--?~iN.£\.'1;HA$\¥:  

REGULAR SECOND A?PmL..;Q¢.21u3;.2mf> W.01:e1«:~' _
R/AT' .1ETER;EKP§R_I   s  
;~  23?? 20 1.

 APPELLANT

{By 3:; S 'V PRAK§Sfi';~~ )

&N§3 _:

;,_ZE;«£2§.RA K31' " """ H "
W/Q 'BABA sag

"'AG:a'D.T_A'3ouT 56 YRS

1 "'IJm:s;§:1§oLD WORK

 JE3'I'T'i3}REKER£
v-.KU'§s:iSI

~~ V SHIMOGA TQ AN?) D18'? 5?? 201.

?YAR3.5 SA8

S/Q BABA SAB

AGES ABOUT 59 YRS
AGRICULTURIST

R/AT SULEBYLU

NILEGE HOBL}

SHi§\f§GGA TQ AND £313? 57'? $201.



ABDUL JABBAR

SIC) BABA SAB

AGED ABOUT 46 YRS
AGRICULTURAL LABOURER
R/AT MA{)ARiPALAYA
SHIMOGA CITY 57'? 201.   

W

4 MGHAMMED ZEHARt§DE>iI*~i'g  *'
S/O ABDUL KARE:-EM; _ 
AGED ABOUT 71 YRS'  

Ram SCHOOL A'FTEND'E_R"

RjOF' JETTEREKER1  '

KUMSI '    u V 
SHIMOGA TQ AXVED ff)-EST' ;:~;f::'.«v,7";2Ci1_x, = 

 'R_'§;S--?oN9EN*rs

RSA_. Lijss .j{>01..."g;vé4' '¢PC AGAINST THE
JUDGEzxz£i3'N'1%j_44_'P;:~ii§""§§E§'§i'§§:1ég-- :3T;';;3'.03.;2006 PASSED IN
R.A.rzo%;6';>,%'f:2:)0€§'i:A:<::»N'=. fr--HE  OF THE} PRL.r.:;:1v11,
JUDGE (--S'R..b§i  SHIMOGA, Dismxsszam THE
APPE;A'L.__ }a:sID'vV._§f;é:§+é§*1::<:§v;<;"§§G THE JSDGMENT' AND
magmaL:N'g:28,Q--.1.:230$'V:vAssED IN OS.N{).38/1996 ON
zfxaia 1%,; C3':2'v.f:f:H«1a: 1 ADm.c:v1L JUDGE: {JR.{}N.)

% 

A ' 7I'i§'i:s g§F}5EAL COMING cm; FOR ADMESSION THES
DAY, ma »:::QuR*z* 9ELIVERE:{) THE FOLLQWING :

JUDGMENT

Beam the learned CQUIISSI fer £116: appeilant anti

” in View 01″ the S1″3.(}I’t paint invalved in this appeal, it is

Ming disposed iii: the stage of admissicm itsaiif.

M

r

The piajntiff before the trial

appfillarit herain and foliowiing the »

plaimifi for declaration

being decreed in part to th+3_ exté11_t <;f h01V<i"i:";g f§l91aifT;

plaiiatiff is entitlttd to her firoperty,
the plaintiff p1'efe1;§ a;d and the lower
appeilatia couyt confirriied of the trial

court and c§:'isi1§;i»Sfsc+é"' ' appeal.

. £01: the appeliant argued
that flue foundation in the case

on the 533:5 of mada in her favour prim" to

I53-""'ii1é defendants I to 3 and therefore

~s:§;e _ 'gs the absolute owner ad' the suit

';3::jr'§%}3erf_fi.ée§€–.V.a1"1tit:le*:d fer passession. F'<31I<:aw'i11g the

defsxidants I to 3 'having said the suit property in

fafiraur of the 4* defendant, the piaintiff approached

___£he trial court for the aforerzzentiened reiief. The

dafeznfiants or: their part, whjla admittirxg the

rslafienship as W813 as the marriage cf 'L116 131a3'11tifi' on

1*»

\.I

5. In the fight ofthe afimfiafid rea$fififigf >

given by the courts belewé I (it) not Seie ‘%

substantiai quisstiion of law arisiriig Mf’0″r «<;G1}side fa£ir)::" "

anti therefore: no ."il3t@1"f€I'{3Z1C6 is caiicd "for, this:

second appeal.

In E116 resu}:§:, the :i§;=f)eai- i:_ii.S{I1′}i$sed.

‘W?fl§A5dfi
M Tudge

Dvr;