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;