High Court Karnataka High Court

E V Doraiswamy Naidu vs Smt G Suryanagarathnam on 19 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
E V Doraiswamy Naidu vs Smt G Suryanagarathnam on 19 September, 2008
Author: A.S.Pachhapure
Iunruu 'aspen: Ian IUl"ll'I.Iil'IIl')l\I'\l any-mu-an Vaaiuffituxu was mu-In-uI:1n:1n1.r1. nu:-nan: V-I1-rnuunn Ian I1l'II1IIrIIrIl\'--I uuuuuu -uuaurqsu nan IIp"|q\III*nll'1I\.r' liuwpll wwemnm mpg a\¢1nu1rmag-man-Q g[I\.r|| 1.1

..1_

IE} '§'§-EE HEGH CGQRT £9?  TK¥:K 33:'? E.3'~.§~}GPLi.aGRE

axrsrgr: *3'!-53$ Fr:-m 19"" EA'! Ci? SEPTEMBER 2098" 

EEFGRE

van HBR'BLE HR.JUSTICE A.s.?A5Hag3§RE'ff'

RE$fihRR.?ER3T APPEAL NG.1Q3§mfif"2GQQ¥§fi$€l»L j

§E'?5s'EE?§

E V EQRAIEWEHY &A1na H,',
339 E H VENKRTASVEHY §AlBfi .u
MAJGR, RED 15?;1»_ ,~"-L*
§E¥ TH1?FA3ANBRRu_f _

wsak FUTTAEPR Mamfingz'
Efifiifihfiaafi V A '.
Efifiakhflkfiefififl 093

335:3 figfigaéin B? §;g3u:1'

1.

Ex? §,a:33$%g§sfax$EaL §w:§£:
aggv A£fi§T_6Ij?EEfiS W

2 $gT.§,?u5HRA éam;mflE#i»
Aafin R£QUT 42.YEfiRS*
KY3 Efihfiffififififfihfifififiififl

.~_3 gmfi $§xgMAfi”§$ayg.

‘*.$£5§zA3$%$ 3? ?KARs

°4″”$§:=§}xRi33&a iafi
~. ,§.5.’gg R3GE._3=I’* , 32 YEARS

?§,i}”f_z §v;RE”E§1ESI33ING AT
zx2s;2.1»s’?;-‘1, Haw THFPASAHDRR
~ 533%” P€}T’?PePPA HUN
1:1 yrma
*_ER§GRLGRE-5&9 33$ ..AEPELLA§T

” st3~:*3*.m.x.mm..pm:;A, Amt. mp:

l’=§;’§ Kfifiif? a CD.)

” “‘ *A’y_j’ “‘– — -..–1.uurnu-uv-1 Iuvll Vulwuhl Ill” RRKIVHIHRR HIV” LQUKI Ur C

-2..

1 3%? Q SURYAEEEARRTHRRH

wig LRTE a A3PAaA sassy

Hflfifik, Rffi fl6.95f4?K

EEE EEK 37353

gag TH§??RSRfiERR

Efifiifikfikfikfi

Ek§$RLfiRE~§éG ass

ER} x fiAEARAJA REED? V

HRJQR, Sim Mawzawxmv Rgnnv.

fi§.1%1§, 1 fififlsfi, 1 EEEN ‘

axswaamannx maven? ”

axa 22: swass uu*. =. =-;= z
fiA§E&LORE ‘V,.RES?0fi33HTS }

Pa)

ag? ER} 3 3 vAEAfi2§3ga$.i£§v;géfia_R2>

REE :3 Fififlfl §£$’x§’_Q? “cFC4;A£A1nsT THE
saa§§3§? fififi ‘gaafifigg §A?5§_’2§,9;2ass PASEED IN
S.$.§fl.é$§5£§fl §fifTHE E353 $3 ?HE XIV AUQL. CITY
C333; Jufigg,’»3§3g3£a33′<§:3x;35:§a HE 391? FGR
Efiflhkfififilfifig ?ms$ss5:u§gas3-xaagscmzeg,

TEES E?EEAL §§aim§*sH fag HEARIHG THIS nay,
TEE Chfifi? fifihxflfifisfi THE 3QLL$W1fiG:

figgéfigxw

2

?x¢_.mn#uc§e$£f$i .§iaintiff has aggreached

= £hi$”fiéfif:uchallefiéing the fii3$i$3al af the suit

‘ia §}$;$¢,#33fif$G aeeking relief vf daclaraticn,

§a55aé$ian’§n$ injunction in rasgact cf the suit

“.,!§§ha§Ui&v7’A? graparty fiaacrihad in the achadula

“,’$$.t §5giaint.

2. Vha .facts ralavant for the purpose af

A”«”§Eis aggsai are as undar:

K

– -….- ……… ..V_y ..u w. In-1¢saunr1IrII\-l’\ uuwn wvvnu vr nnnnntnnn r3I\.’.fl1 LAJUKI UP RRKRHIHIKA HIBH LUUKI U!” RIKKNIHAKA HIGH U

“W

%, fiuriag the pendency mf this aggeal, the

3§§§iia§: has filed an aggiicatian ufa 41 Rm;é E?

SP2 asaiag garmiggicfi ta isad 3dfiitiQ§ai¥”_

evi§&n$e and tha rasgundenta have _§1$@_Vfiied3
akjestimnfi ta the said &§@ii¢§ti¢fi. ‘i§x #fi§_x
sircamstanaes, I have hearé the lpa:n§§ Eoun$$i

far aha aggellant aha alga fi§&«:é5pandeni5.7 WW’

1%. The point$~ -thgt’u afi3a for my

camzifiaratisn are: W”

: 1{ Efiefihfin the plaifitiif

is én§;tiéfi,£§ fihé igiief af
“fi¢:iara§i¢fiV §3 “”” Eégardfi the
;=«xb’;-.<«:fi;:;s='é.f3'c.'»._ ' .6'£'?n_é3:'shig at" the

3Qit $$h$§uiép§ §rcgerty?

A x*2;V¥fi§ther the glaintiff
.5'*ié,«in aéiuai pesaeaaien and
H_ a§§¢ymant af tha suit

x §flh§§#1e grcgerty?

3. Whether the glaintiff

s wag §i3po33es3ed by the

fiafandants and that whether

the glaintifif is entitled ta

tha gassassian sf tha suit
schaduia gragarty?