EN Tm: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 10"' day of June 2008 "
:BEFGRE: .»__.
THE HGNBLE MRJUSTICE ; v.JAGANr§.s;§9fIA'§I{'L;*~«
REGULAR SECOND APi3EAL No. 2086. _ 3
BETWEEN :
Sri Ratnamurthy,
S] (:2 late Narayanappa,
Aged about 60 years,
R] a Doddahulluru Village,
Hosakote Taiuk, ' __ E " ,
Bangalore Rural Distzriét 4-T5833 % '
1.
sifgcc dea:i_b}{‘hiS’*!,_.”Rs;’.’ :
. .3) “S.!:VIlf;.v.’.:3″CIA1.}-:E}.fi;:l:’II1II1a,
late Subba Rao.N.,
Aged aizééut 55 years.
T.
« late Subba Rao.N.,
-figed about 30 years.
*~ t. Sri Venkatesh,
S/0 late Subba Rao.N.,
Aged about 28 years.
Ci) Sri Raghavcndra,
S/o late Subba Rao.N.,
Aged about 26 years.
6) Sri Pzashantha,
S/0 late Subba Rac.N.,
Aged about 24 years.
2. Sri Hanumantharayappa,
S/0 Srikantaiah, Aged about
?’4 yeam.
All are 1*] a Dodda Hullur Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore
District-584 161. M
“. ._.’Rcs?p()1;Adc;_nt:3
Regular Second Appceffilgd uandexe
C.P.C. against the jz1dg311entV’VL’La1;it£_dc¢iue’ “deitcd’:§9.6.20G6
passed in R.A.No. 137;e:2p02 ee’x;ee~fi1eeeeftee ;=x:1e:{Diet1~;et as
Sessions Judge] Pxttsiiiizig. _Traci< Colxrt-IV,
Bangalore Rural the appeal
and confi11I1jng'««:tfihe dated 8.4.2002
passed file of the CiVi} Judge:
(Jr.D:e,)§e Je»;F"C}:.,§_1eee;»
,_,4-
4
all his properties in flavour of Subbamnia and to his
three sons and, Hanuniantharayappa, one of fti:e’j'<sons,
sold the property which was
Subbamma also sold 'A' schedule'
the second defendant through
in respect of 'B' and 'C' V'propert§e's;t1*;ej f.I'Sf'l
defendant acquired V over.' as 'he'-'Was looking
after his mother tillaiher Therefore, the
plaintiff has .n4*i.A:righti;oV¢l3" seheclule items.
4. The of–~-the} parties led the learned
trial _iu_.dge as five issues and, after
taking evidence let in by the parties,
– tt:e=i1¢.,;;.:m¢d .lti’iaJ.._.j_1zdge held that the plaintifi’ is not
‘ share in suit ‘A’ schedule property but,
‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are
coneetneel, following the first defendant having failed to
A “:i_° iprotre that the sale} items fell to his share, the p1aintifi’ is
V’ entitles to half share in ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties
also as only the plaintiff and the first defendant were left
in the fray following the death of their parents and one
brother Hannmanthfiayappa. Consequently. the suit of
.4
1:
Hanumantharayappa, who diets} issueless. Therefore, it
is subnfltted that notwithstanding the View takenhy this
court that the appeal new preferred is }ia?i.1i§i:*’
dismissed, yet, {he appellant be glvcn td
his remedy as regards the said Ac{}nce1j’13ed.V
1′
8. In the light of the abofe
pmceed to pass the foflowixiggfrder:
The is . appellant is at
iiberty of the property
wmclfi, ‘V _ _– him, was left by