BETWEEN 1.
AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CiRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS 26″” DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009*-
BEFORE
HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT5«ABx%BARB’B:)**.{
RSA N0.5080()B02005′-A V
ADAVEPPA TELA
Age:55
S/O SHIVAPPA TEL!
AGED ABOUT 55 YBAS, 0
R/O SNGALAGI TQ MLIDHQL
DIST BAGALKOT « *
(By SrE.: M’RUTY’UN§AY TAETA Binge!)
GOUSMODDEN l§AG_A\W/U53
Age: SSQ ‘ ~
‘~ s/0 u[T’ALAsAn.1_aB BAdA’.’.r..ALN’
IA,-
53. YEARS ‘
B0/QMJDHVOLB v
,.pIsT0_BAGA’L.1_<oT%'
' V' '=..,'3INCE DBABY ms "
V MUMTAZ BBGAAA wa/0 GOUSMODEN BAGAWAN
HAGED AEOUT1" 50 YEARS
V RAATMUDALGI
T ~.jC-QKA'BATALuK
" _ 3.EL–A.GAUM DISTRECT
':0"'A2v'{B"NBB¥3) As BBB COURT ORDER DTD: :4.10.2009
E
APPELLANT
2. ARJUN HALYAL
Age: 35
S/() SANGAPPA HALYAL
35 YEARS
R/O INGALGE TQ MUDHOL
DIST BAGALKOT
3. MALLAPPA HULYAL
Age: 42
SEO SANGAPPA HU LYAL
42 YEARS V b
R/ INGALGI TQ MUDHOL DIST ” A
BAGALKOT
4. SAIDUSAB BAGAWAN
S/O AMINSAB BAGAWAN
MAJOR
R/O MUDHOL
DISTRICT BAGALKOT
5. K.ASiMSAB BAGAWAN
S/O AMINASAB BAGAWAN
MAJOR
R/O MUDHOL
DIST BAGALKOT
6. VAJBB BAG’A”».VAN”<. –
3/0 AMINASAB B'A:u~._,wAH_
MAJOR -. ' " *
R/O MUDHOL ._
DIST BAGALKQT _
7. HABUT] B,AGAwANV_
V S/O AM§_lNAS*AB BAGA-WA
“u_MAJO_R”~ —–
R/QMUDHOL _
:2 I’DISvT’B_A.C:ALKOT.._ V
. V 8. z4ioO’1i3_/{N “8AE;’Aw;\}&:’
‘DIST BAGA l_,E'<.OT
D/OAMINASABABAGAWAN
MAJOR " ~
j R/O MUDHOL
NESPONDENTS
"77_'A.:_':(a§};3ri)'..SHEVARAJ P MUDHOL FOR R2 & R3)
5
2. An issue having been framed as to whether the sale in
favour of defendant No.1 is void, the Trial Court held in favouiyof
the defendant. Defendant No.1 had not chosen to§’_”te11d_’er:
evidence to contest the proceedings effectively. The
been decreed, the same was carried in agppeall thewt’ace
contention urged before the Appellate Court” that the bgeing ;
a muslim, he was entitled to 7 /83% shafiiii the and to
the extent of the share of jliflfi sarnei was saved,
even if the plaintiffs share by defendant
No.3, her share was ‘capablehof ai–ienatAi:oin.”andfthat the same had
not been considefredfi_fllhel”~–appe.lla’te.r.:cou;jt*’having negatived the
same and dismisseid’the_«Vappeal;”~ this second appeal is filed.
The primary su.bstantia1_.lq11estion of law that is sought to be
raised by the appellant arnorigl ‘others, is whether the courts below
0ver–lool<in..cr«'that the plaintiff and his family were
mol'iarn;adens'vvand"ther_efore the defendant could not have claimed
Share"Vof Property and therefore the share of
DdefendantllNo.V3.rwhich was conveyed in the sale deed could yet be
.1 favour of the appellant.
"E
However, it is to be seen that this question could not arise
for consideration, in the face of the circumstance that.» the
appeltant had not raised such a ptea in his written stat«en:entian'dV.
the appeltant found wanting in diligence in contestiiég eifthieir
suit or the appeal. Mere arguments as to' the status _:offthe Iiaaritiexlsg
does not arise for consideration by this court;-as a queVst~1'oI':. c£_'1ax;}+,= ._
let alone a substantial question of Ac.co.1jdii<1g1y, apjpeal ii
stands rejected.
BSV