High Court Karnataka High Court

Govindaswamy vs Anche Munishamappa on 26 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Govindaswamy vs Anche Munishamappa on 26 February, 2009
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
 'is; . "'%;2}é;;§:;ém3"'mAPPA H """ H

  {IBYiSfli~._. R.cHArwRANNA, Am/.,)
 __*;é=x£~¢t§ :
" M ANCHE MUNISHAMAPPA

IN THE HIGH comm' 0F KARNATAKA AT    _
DATED THIS THE 25"' mm' (3? FEBRUARY;.:2€}f:3:§:  _ 3 _:   A 
BEFORE  V A'     

THE HON'BLE MR. msmrze A.VN..}fEi\§4U"{§'f.'§PALAV  
REGULAR sacotw A?FiuE'13gL'N_§}.i7»3-6:['ii.9C.iV?'

BETWEEN:   _    

1.

GGVINDASWAMY % V
AGED AB{}U’E.4″.7 YEARE». 1
S!0.3.J3.TE y15e§;<;sTA;?_PA§ _

2. KETTAIAE
AGED A§ou;f:145 “r”EARS».”_’ ‘.
S;’Q…i..ATE ‘¥(EN’Eé;§TfisP–?A–._

39%: ARE.V3RE3:f§E?«£$”>*-5″”— % ”

Kfi S–.f1xGU§iKi- VIi;i,A(3}E–.
msaaa H0811 A A
§EVM&fiii~£ALE_3. mLu.s<

§A?§{§ALORE.R"{1:RAi.'DISTRICT – 562116

~ é(5E,{3'AB«£3£}T_ 37 YEARS
S;'G,LAT'E HAh§UMANTHARAYAP?A @ "§"HAYAP?fi\

– % ;¥{ESIi)E_?;F.T car ARALUMAMGE vzzmea
X .__DOG[3AB£.i;LAPURA TALUK
‘£&AN”€§ALORE RURAL SISTRICT » 56:263.

33.¥3?ELi.AI’éTS

S;*’O.LATE ERAPPA (NOW {EEAD}
SINCE DECEfizSE[} BY HIS LRS

1(A) ANCHE AN3IN§PPA
AGED ABOUT 58 ‘¥’EARE§
SXGJENCHE MUNISHAMAPPA

1(5)’ SMTMUNI AKKAYYAMMfis
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
S/0.LATE ANCHE MUNIS¥’iAMA?PiA

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KODAGURKI VILLAGE

KASABA new _ ._
DEVANAHALL1 TALUK ,
BANGALORE RURAL ai3T’R1c§;V’:-,5a21.1eu ,

MC) Sm” PILLAMMA, V ”

AGES ABO§J’i’~*!:Q’YEA=RSg V
D/O.ANC¢HE M:;;N:Vsi~£.gmA:pVPA if; V
AND Wffi.¥”E,€}NI’?’!3xP?A’=.f’–
RESIDENT 0? 1BOMMA–.N!3.HAi,L1
c:HANNA3A§rAp»;::rsA”-$40-31.:
DEvANA_HAL;.J. i;fAa,ux._ % %
BAP;-GALGRE ;aL3’s:AL»T.:)I-.~’::mEc”€

RE$?ONB§?\§§’$

(BY 5:21 WEE?’ mgMAR’1nE:§H’?Aw0E ma R1
33;: N.:~«mNrsHAMA:AH,FoR ma)

” _ S-¥.~ZI”M;_ -RAl!§SHEKA§?:”FOR R4)

: “F.*§I’:~’}.»RSf”-§_I:’3~ FILES U,/S. 139 OF CPC AGRINST ‘§”HE
}l}{}G§fMAENT “«._& VIEECREE DATED: 164G§.2{307 PRSSED IN
E-?;.A.’§3£O’;V17?f2€¥:i’}ZT:’0N THE FILE 0F THE DISTRICT JUBGE 8;
¥’RESI¥D__INGv’CFF£CER, FfiaST TRACK COEJRT N0.V, BANGALQRE

“RURAL DISRICT, EANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FELES

‘~«.[;’ ~._A6AINST 7§_HE JUQGEMENT AND DEGREE SATEBI 1?.86.2(3{}2

‘ E3’a’5.K3S’if.’%’3 EN CiS.?s30.24;’1992 SN TfiE FILE 3? THE CIVEL }U$GE
(3R.{3_N.)}.’ 8:35-*!FC, DEVANAHALLI.

E THIS APPEAL COMRSG ON FQR ADMISSION THIS DAV,

“«f%i%§’E cow?” BELEVERED THE FOLLGWENG:

liiflfii

The appea§ was caiied more than once..A4a:%f;d:’§:Va;s«sedVL:”

ever, even thcugh there was no1_re;:re$§2:é’£a%im’:–.?<:r':vV-§%*;wa=:1vT.'

appeiiant, both in the mommg a:aC§._va'ftern:.;c§'?2*VV..$fe;ssé_§:vra[

Even til! rising of the {here is
no representation for t%':§"'a.p;3e§A£V3$ir:':':;:':«..%§;§'aA.a'ppe%fA, ;vhEch is
of the: year 280?, –'f'<%§"AA'b~1'aV;:;i%é*z§ss§cn now.
The apgeflané the appea§.

Hence, ‘
Sd/*

Iudqe