IN THE HIGH councr o:= KARa:A'§'A§ALA'eowm REGUi.AR ssconb A§9r.}\L N§;2'§7 7;2oo7 BETWEEN: I % 1 JAYAPRAKASH 'L 7 B s/0 SIBDAFEA DEAD 3vL;Rs,; ' a) SMT.YASHODAM«!9EA,{' w/o mm JAYAPRAK.A§!-i,' AGED ABC}UT so <_YEARL's«; R/(J L'SHI§(!(A:i,4\JUR, % I-:oaAt..z<EaE 'rALu:~::, A «canmauagm msmxcr. m sI~1*r.3--§ i%wA:§bA;% :3/0 LATEi;3,A.YAPRAl<ASH, "yo IESAHADEVAPPA, AGED ;%_BGUT 40 YEARS, . c:/o v.R.L. omce, = _aE:,a.Aav. PRATHIBA J. .0/o LATE JAYAPRAKASH, w/o sarzsa, SATISH NILAYA, VAMMANJARI, MANGALORE. d) J. GURUSHANTHAPPA, S/0 LATE JAYAPRAKASH, raj X , ..cHlTRADL{RGA ozsmzcr M A 3 '"THE. TA.'4fSILDHAR The REVENUE INSPECTOR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS; e) ILSHIVAMURTHY, S/0 LATE JAYA?RAKASi-1, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS HOLALKERE m.u;< " T é CHITRADURGA msmicfe (d) AND (a) ARE R/0 % (av six: 5 c : V . . ' . 1 spéczgm. Vl)EiV?{i;ff$'.'(§0::H?viISSI0NER, cnrmanuasa ms'naz<:r §:HITRA'DtJRGA;-- -- 5.77591 m-;s1LbHAR' % HQLALKERE TALUK _ '¥%Q1".ALi£ERE".577526 DAVENAGERE TALUK * : IIIAVANGERE 577091 BDURGA HOBLI R,/O CHICKIUAJUR, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 5 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENSENT OF POLICE, CHITRADURGA CIRCLE CHITRADURGA 577501 6 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE HOLALKERE CIRCLE 3-KJLALKERE 577526. 7 "me sue. ms:-ecroa or POLECE * cnxxmmun 7 7 HOLALKERE TALUK 57752.6 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT' 3 NIJALINGAPPA, 7 ADMINISTRATOR 3; '?.,A. Human, SRLTARALABALU eaumnew ssnzsene, cH1mA9uaeA'T#;Lua<7, 7 7 currmounsn DI$TRI(.IT 57.7f5_01.'. 7 A ij...'.". n,ESnonosn'rs THIHS_VRS~A 'iS7:_;FILED"1JfS'; .1_00_fOF cpc Asmasr THE JUDGEMENT nag. kinoecnse "M7507 14.6.2007 mssexa IN R.A.No7V4/2902n7oN7nn1HET"nFILE or me cxvn. JUDGE (SR.DN),"«.HOLALKER'_E,V nnnxsmssxue THE APPEAL AND cousxnmmzs «THE JUDGEMENT AND oscnee DATED 19.10.2901
“‘PASSEi)Ir:!_ as 154/so on THE FILE or me
Q ADm.,_;c1vILJut’3z3E’ (JRJDN), HOMLKERE.
7VAV:V}”‘3’hiE§7A;:7pe_aI coming an for admission this day, the
*C os;2rf “deiEv_¢red.__ Vine foflowing:
BIQEHEBI
n T Unsntcessfui piaintiff is the appflant. Suit flied by
‘ the decree of deciaration and consequentiai rend’
. “:7″‘–‘VA:§’f__i7ermanent injunction with respect to the mutation
sentries having been cantested by the defendants, after
E
/7%
was 42 years old and his father had purchased the
property in the year 1963 and that there was no difficeity
for the piaintiff to purchase the land in his own naneete-ni_i-..vV
since he has faiied to prove the
transaction, which being a fact and _I_y1.o,t__a q1_i’estien’;vof~:le:e it
and since both the Courts below
defendant Siddappa was the atieoltite owner’aiidv”h§ie…rig.ht.v%
to gift the property in fayour of:v:4_S:ri:yTe_Vraiebei:u:fiEdtication
Society, Sirigere, the 1977 and the
suit having been filed in ‘held that, no
ground is made findings and
conc|usione__Vrec.ordeg§”vby vttgaeiow and the second
appeai
3. Slncethe Vbiai4n’tiff’eu~~’i’daim that he is the owner of
..-‘the E$cheduie””pr.o.perties herein and that he is in
V”pos§e’esiyon4:*and:”n enjoyment of the property has been
negetiited.vin”*.tii}e?etoresaid proceedings, which has attained
tinaiity on account of the Judgment and Decree passed in
asp. 2473/2007 dated 11.3.2099, the ciaim made he-em
K
/7′
which relata to the entries In the revenue
not survive for consideration. A;;a”:’t~from” .éfo.fesa.3d”-.A
circumstances, having perused
and after hearing the iearnedth-e ap§isilar:f; in ” Ly
consideration to admit’ , for fufther
consideration. _
In tbs devoid of merit and
stands ‘nlccoroinoly.
sa/4,
Iudge