K N Venkataravanappa vs Lakshmamma on 13 August, 2008

IN THE HIGH coma": or-* KARNATAKA AT BANGA§;0R1?: I % fA %   

DATED ms TI-IE13m DAY OF A§}(}UST'_   ~
BEFORE   4* "  %%

THE'HON'BLE smJUsI1c2€,1  J
REGULAR swam   

Between:

Sic Narayfinmppq.  .  
T.C. ZKSRJFC  ._ ' _
3"' C'1=gm,--.  
Ko:ar~..s632n1."   -- 

%%2%  KN.    %%%%% -4
 .  Sfr_:) Naraya.a1§ppa,
- Field supmism, PCARI) Bank,
 Main Rqad, Kmmpet, Kolar Town,
Koia;  101.  Appenams.



& 
W/'0 late I).  ,

Aged about 52 years,
D.No.892, 1' Cross,
1'' Stay, Iudiranam;
Banglore --~ 38.

Sam. I'az-vaflxaxm
W/oCh1'kk.anna,
Aged about 49 years,

R/a I  Kelar T911:-*fi, _ if V

Ko1ar-- 563 1ie:.;._ %« 

 

Kola' 944563. 101,. _   _ *

W19 

.   ..... -4
~K'olar District 563 101.

 W/ofiajéppa.
"  "A$fi.¢abmIt41yeam.
 -   P-/aI~'andithaA$al1aza.
  Mug\1loorPost,

Amkal Taldt.

R/a Nw     %



Rfa Knrbm-pet, Kc-!a1'Town,  '

Koiar----563 101.  ;..; 

(By Sri Shanmlkhappa & musk; ~ %  '

mm ami-i1&umm¢%% j:%m;am  Sec.100 of cm
agaim the  " pmsed in

R.ANo.86£2005,"ea;Vv_V

ms  L at Seem  " 3  if  1113' on fix Adam 'on this
day, w Court the 

A  ma defendant Neal and 2 in

  V o.s;ra§%.%:e3z21'si)e% file ofthe Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & me,
 Yiglax. Iimademé" _%   VNos.1to 5 mmepzam "ifs and6*r&:pondm
  mamas: in the suit. The pxamfis md third

  mm' ofdefmdm Neal and 2. For 111: sake of

P'.


 



convenience, the parties are refared to by me rmzing     _

themintheu-ialCourL

2. The plaintiffs filed the afmemig mgtfi  I

separate possmion ofthe suit  3'i&_§1gig ifis
«mended tha the property  property
of their mm having.    Ex.Dl-a
mgistaed sale    am
have filed at: 2/3"' share each in the suit
mama  2 have filed mar mm

as. _ mW.m&     ma tlmt they have pumam the said

 »    V  mm Yenm Alternarnv' any, 'a is
 1ax.n2--win in their favour. Therefme, the plum 'rm camot

  ohm said propeaty. On the ham': ofthe pleadth 3 of

_r'

2}:



A   defendants 1 & 2 prove that itm No.2
   %p.~opcuy% j  as not the property ofvettm?

the parties, the oouthelow ms fi'&&o1lowing inn'.-fir
 :

"1. Whether the plaintifik prove that the A
were self-aoqxired properties of Yelif?'   _V "

3. mm the pnainm    ;..~a:;:'ak;~,.,+m:%% ze
pmpmies are    -- "  of  to the

 

4. Wm    prove that the
   valued'  pmpefiiw and paid

  X  ¢v_ic-£',~ncia111s:.    1 & 2 prove that this Court
. touythis me?

E

 \

 



   ;j evidence ofthe partia, has dwwd the suit of

 1405.1 and 2 filed an appml in R.A.No.86!2005 on the

7. Whether the defendms 18: 2 prove thatthcy  '   _
paid money and purchased item No.1 and 2   
name of Ye-11% as contended in pa;ra""'I'i*(a}'_ dftlge     

3. Whahaertime defendants 1 & 2    
has executed a regiaerediwzlll   _   
the suit schedule propextiefifd t,-.e.   k

9. mm ax»,   may have
spent   and
  ii2'.Vpaj'aé'l'(a}V$§the w.s?

10. Wlmthea-    they are entitled'
for pm1m_.._.,'L'on   'on of the 93:1
 -  

T .. V The have ya in their evvi&n3g_ mg {fig} com on

% Feeling aggieved by the said judgnem ma decree,

Kk.

file ofthe Presiding Ofiioer, Fm Track Court III, Koim: The i _

appellate Court by its judgment and decree has

appeal. The defendant Nos.1 and f — e

said gleam and decree of the Cvoui.-Iv: %

appml.

4. Having heard flra    Ido not
find any mmit in age    stood '51 the
name of   detemam Nos.I

and 2. in prove that me property
was their ebsexete failed to prove the Will

pp find possession of the suit scheanle

to the win have not supported me

” 2. The ooufis below an appreciation of

_ I .V 4′ evideme cf the mrties, have rigmly

fo’Ta’«-snmxélusim that the plaimiffs are emitled for a share in

. The appeal does am involve any substamial

R’.

question of law. Comequenttly, E appeal fails and it is

dimxissed. No costs.

Blsflvi/1382008