IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 20*" my 0:: ocTo3EgM2ob9"%%ykf% h
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHaNmNAmus%A2%'
R.S.A.No.2114i'2Q08"(-R'E_§)_
Between: V» .'
Basappa ,
S/0 Nanjannara Basappa
Aged about 56 years _ '
Agricuiturist _ V
R/0 Maienahalni-57:%52G.V "
Kasaba Hoblig '' '
Holalkere Talulji T_ ._
Chitradurga»D_is~:ricfiii; ..Appe11ant
{By Sri .
AND:
4_ , _ 1. M Shankafa'pfié
. Sinde dead- by his Lgsfi,
'a) _ V'3.:'1a3Va'z:é1a:afn,ma
._ " W'/6 Vjrgpgxkshappa
' _ D/0 M.N--._ Shankarappa
Aged abéut 52 years
R/Q I-'Ionnebagi
.. , Cha1'1nagiri Taiuk
" _ Davangere District.
13) Kamalamrna
W/o Shekarappa
e)
1-:
13/ o Shankarappa
Aged about 50 years
Madapura
Channagiri Taiuk
Davangere District.
Vemakshamrna
W/0 Shivappa
D/o Shankarappa
Aged about 49 years
R/ 0 Mahadevakatte
Chitradurga District.
Nanjappa
S/ 0 Shankarappa
Aged about 47 years
Ratnamma
W/ o Siddappa
Aged about 38 years d V
Prema
Aged ' '
Poorrra' K
D/0 Urriesh .V
.ab0uf 4._2dyea
S/A dc-vlate 'Umesh
"-[Aged .'ab_0 22 years
'R1[d) to are
Rjfo Malenahalli
yyfiolaikere Taluk
"Chitradurga District.
dayamma
W/0 Rudreshappa
Aged about 44 years
R/o Rajagondanahalli
Channagiri Taluk
Davangere District.
3') Prakasha
S / 0 late Shankarappa
Aged about 43 years
R/ o Near Tarabalu Mutt
Sirigere. Chitradurga Taluk.
2. Shavantramma
W/o Ningappa
R/o Malenahalli
Kasaba I-Iobli
Holaikere Taluk
Chitradurga District.
V ..Respondents
(By Sri D.R. Nagara_§:ai 'Aa{:..A. *
This Appealis f:?J4ed.un.der Section 100 of CPC against the
judgment, and. deeree d-at'ed' 'l2--8--2008 passed in RA
No.159/2001 '-on thedfiie of._the='Civi1 Judge (Sr.Dn.}, I-Iolaikere,
partly aJ1ouz'ingdtthe"app.ea!.yand confirming the judgment and
decree dated 1063-1999 passed in OS No.68/1992 on the file of
the Add}. CiVi1Jud'g.e_(Jr.&I)n.}, Holalkere.
.' :Ap.pea1 is coming on for admission this day, the
CQtii't_ deliveyrevdt' "following :
JUDGMENT
x the defendant’s second appeal filed against the
judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in
V”
3. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates
that, if any property is transferred by way of sale, thejsaifnewill
have to be registered if the immovable propeiltyl 4′
Rs.100/– or above. But, accordingto, the
purchased the immovable property throughji’
highly unbelievable. At the me-‘st’,~..the defendantlcan’vb.emtr3eated.t L’
as a licencee in possession of the is nothing on
record to show that he is of the property,
inasmuch as, even accordingetolv._hi.n1,”.A’he purchased the
property through in” ofithe matter, both the
Courts belov; that the plaintiffs are
entitled for decree,for'”ipos.session. —
No question less, substantial question of
law in this’appea1.: The Appeal fails and accordingly, the
is dismissed at the stage of admission.
Sd/~
EUDGEEZ