.....
IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAIDRE.
DATED THIS THE 1973 DAY ms' AUGUST ' BEFORE Q
THE HONBLE MR.JUS’!’lCE S. ABpI;–Tt_L A
REGULLAR sacozm APPEAL;§_o.282ogmc§
BETWEEN :
1. ‘IKE. ‘ V
Slo. Late Eswarappafi .
S/0. Latc–Esw::3jappa «-
Aged 40 % ‘
A Sic. ééttc
~ yms
En’.-_[‘o.
Aged about 29 yaw
W/o. iate Eswarappa
the juégmcnt decree dt.1I.08.2006 passed ‘m R.A.
-._ _”~,.N0-240/2U01 I.OIl tbs: fiic of the Civil Judge (Sr. Us.) at
_’ ” ‘Hdlai}st:r¢, tiismissing the appeal and confixmmg thc
am: decree d:.1s.os.2oao passed in o.s.
V 1%-,4’2_9i1991 on the & ofthc Add}. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.),
‘ .I%_{t)la}Js:c1’e.
Aged about 31 years
8. Thalasad Malhppa
S/o. Basappa
Aged about 60 years
Holalkcrc Talukw 5’f’7 50/ _4
(By Sri: B.M. Siddappa, Adv.)
AND:
I. Smt V W10. Late
S/0. Latc31{.r§-.”E§sw*&x’a;$p’§, :
D/o.”- I_,at¢_: -K.vN’.’ ._ ‘
S/o._ Late KN’;
3+
V’ 577 S01 RESPONDENTS
“I’h1s ‘ under section 100 of CPC sigma’ t
7. Whether the plainiifih are entitled for the i ‘f ~ ..
relief of declaration and conacquentia}. 191″ ‘AW
injunction as prayed for ?
8. What order or decree ? ”
4. The parties have
documents were also beet} the
mrtics. On Q’ –.d_t:x:umcntary
evidence on the that the
plairatifib am thcr site. The Trial
thc by the said judgment and
declfifl, theAé’pp¢a1 in R.A.No.240/2001
on the Dn.), Holalkem. The Lower
V” ‘on ‘ n of the end’ cum: of the
iudgmt ~13′-twlt ofthc ‘I’nal’ Court. Feeling aggnevcd’
~ jv.-v’4.};§y=».the filament and dccrcc, the dcfimdants have am
5. Havin.gheard1carncdCounsclforthc
appeflants/daefcndfi I do not find any mesdt in this »
appeal. As noticed’ above on apprecn;-mo’ ‘ 11 of
documentary evidence on mconi, the Trial ” V
that the plaintifiia are the ovmcrs and Vv .
Court has re-appreciated the cntim
and has come to a
rccmded by the
apprcciatitxl of the and
there is no in tho”:
findings. The doés substantial
question of law. fails and it is
‘ -.5. -. _ . . . . . .. ‘V
03