Sri T Sundara vs Sri T Shivaram on 9 September, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

Dated: This the 9th day of September   " 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE; y.qAGAN'NA§':£Aiq   4 

EEGULAR SECOND APPE§;$__§§.**63é~  A

BETWEEN :

1 SRITSUNDARA  --.
s1o.LA'rE.TH1B__B'mAr.1, I 
AGED 74 YEARS,' -7 - *   

2 SMT GQWRAM;-;MA" I':: A  
  _   
     A

3 A33; 'm*'1T}aswAm:AA~% ~  
 s/u.mTE.T:,I;:=:,sA_RAJU.
'--.__AGEI)V 35 'Y_»If)'ARS»,__ ._ ~ %

ALL ARE "RIAT NCr..%,141o,
KOTWAL RAMAIAH STREET,
' " DEVARAJA MOJHALIA, MYSORI3.
 . "  11111   APPELLANTS

' ii'-EEVANASEDDAPPA, ADV. )

 x _1 " -si2rrsHIvA1=eAM

S/().LA'I'E.'i'HIBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.1410, KOTWAL
RAMAIAH S3'F.'EET, DEVARAJA
MOHLALLA, MYSORE.

2 sm 1' EEVAMMA
W] OANKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,



4
the appellants being not happy with the shares

allotted, the same can be settled in terms of vixioizey

and the court Commissioner has also  

property and equalisation of 

and, therefore, referring tn:_thi.s aspeetieit  *

that the second appellant a_1vlotted«i_tiieAvvVf?portien
Where she is  Ta  it -as there is no

other source of i;1eo1t::ie'feff ther§e.._ V

4. mg    mexespondents Shri
 ttiieriiotitset that the final
decree  -- drawn and there Iemains
nothizig»  afresh. Secondly, it was

stfiiniitted   on the report of the

. 'Cemiziissioiner, the final decree has been drawn. and

  have no grievance in Iespect of the

 allotted to the parties. As the rights of

  " 1Z7fi€3zpt:IVi'fl6S have already been decided, the question of

 the request ef the appellants at a belated

V  stage, therefere, does not arise. In fact, the lower

appellate court has observed that, in the event of

if



5
appellants not happy with the share allotted to them,

they can also settle the matter in terms of money"

equalization of shares is also peI".{x1issible;""- A' 

seen that the Court Commissioner    --.  

the property.

5. In the light of the aforesaid..si1bn1issi<;r1:si'inside  ~'

by the learned counsel    the
order of the lower    the
Commissioners. vwas,-~    and cross-
examined       appellants, and
the  been aocepted, I do
not   appeal and much less, any
substeiitiel  arising for consideration.

    lacks merit for the aforesaid

' _rease1_1s,  View of the submission made by the

H  "   for the appellants that the area in

 appellant is having a petty shop be

it *  to her, I am of the view that, particularly in

Vigthe light: of the Co111111issioner's report indicating that

i the building is in a very dangerous condition and at

k

:4-



5
any moment; it may collapse and, therefore, there is

only land value and it will have to be shared 

the six persons, the respondents herei11,__   _

may consider the request of

gve her the place WheIe”ehe.. L’

till such time the entire in
such an event, the to find other

ways of malcizigvher V’

7. J the appeal is
dismJissedT;” is clear that the above
observafion is._1I1ade_ the request made by the

leayxaegi appellants and the same shall

A $63. any d1rect1′ ‘on by this court.

W

Judge

V. eckcj”