I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27'?" DAY OF' OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE K GoVINDARASfULU.'T:'V:
BETWEEN
K.S.VIMALA, W/0 G.M.MRU'I'HY'UNJAYA_ "
R/O GIJAGARU VILLAGE, ' I
TALAGUPPA HOBLI,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT .
PIN -577 401. ' " * 'APPELLANTS
(BY SR1. KALEEMUi;I_.A ADV.)
1. N.L.ASHOKA'S./G4.'N.G;--1_,AI;:SI~IMINARAYANA
R /AT RAILWAY ST;A.fHQ?x'I ROAD
AI$IA:\II)APURAM; SAGAR TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
' . 'A _ PIN :'-F577" -44101
._ V_}2i'JSI:.VIj\f/I»1II%\II§*A\/'I_:vIA
= AW./0 N..c;,.LAKSHMINARAYANA
-3. éIV1T.""VGE£L;I'HA
D/C.l_\?:;G. LAKSHMINARAYANA
- _ w _RE:SPoNI:)ENTS No.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT RAILWAY STATION ROAD
F ANANDAPURAM, SAGAR TALUK
' SHIMOGA DISTRICT -- 577 401.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL.:NG.551--'{é( )vO§~VI,"
4. 8.8REEPADA RAG
S10 ESWAMY mo
Rm Hmnunarsma, SAGAJR
snmzzzm. 9139.577 401
S. K.S.VEHKA'I'E8sH
Sffi} K. SWAMY RAG
6. SET. KflVI'I'HA
WI 0 RAGHAVEXDRA
7. KUM.8WATI-II
D! O RAGHAVENBRA
s. CKINIEAYA
s;ormGH.avE1m 4!; _
zemspozcrnmrs ma.7"a; &,ARE3_
REP.BYlcIO*fH_E1'-2 mmrgan % %
GUARDmH'fiT.3_'RE$PONEEET,' x
REs1=-OHDEIWS :¢u.:§ 're: 3 ARE'.
RE8Il)I?3NTa..
8EIb£<QzcREz DATED: 15.4.2909 means IN
R.A'.kf_IC>.19j20§29 ON THE FILE OF' 'I'HE C-NH, JUDGE
(3R.}3N.) fi.r"--'..{1AR, DEESING THE APPEAL AND
«comvmnme ms omen mmn: 7.3.2909, vases!)
ken :.A.1~I<*::s. 60, 62, 74, 75, 77 & 51 Is Emzo. 3312003,
~01»; THE ms or mm own, JGDGE {JR.DN.) & Jmac,
% T..Tflm
THIS APFEAL CGKEUG OH FSR ADMISSIOK THIS
V ' * _ " Tm ccum' DELIVERED mm Fonmvrme:
JUDQMENT
I..aarned Adwumhe fiat respondenw
the facm of thh cane refarfim to tlw J1;dgg_i§:;s:x;t:VA.<§:i" ..
Cicurt in REA I~to.491/2007
2894 betwwn
K.G.La}mhmina.rayana anti of
tho: csrdw is found at :
of evemts
above smws is collusion an the
part inf 'defendant and
his exac:11ti::n of a
passed by this
Cequrt; 31"' -'.' have._atrained evmy nerve am!
__'peaaible forum by defect
right cf the first
shit schedule property as
.. Qclaciarecl _th¢_ eomprcrmnw decree. The
:1-rigrlfil' lfiqafién started in the year 1967
'A arecwm-. Even thez1,thm-e
csf finality reached. It is
auch solitary exam, than entire
juqlicifls ayatm is reticulated and people
wmther our system would
realfy fiven them justice. Evexy one have
thair mght. kl their awn way no
.thiasorryatateofa.fi'airs. Itis high fixne the
Cam-t. should coma down heavily cm each
chronic litfiganm. wha abuse the process of
the Court aw put inuumabla obat.ruct.iom
in mecutigm af a lawful decree passed, which
has reaclfl It i: aha nfiaaxy
that an aprpropriatc message is to be sen1_:...__
while dealirg with such mm to the afi'ec't,__
that the Caurm are 139 metre
!xal:m*m3atheseman.%p11lative tactim. '
have spam naarly forty years in " T
aorridara. virtually the youth of,¢.--h¢f~firat
dafievnfi is rubbed 15;»
'rm Hare and money spentljn :1;
53 mt poaaihlaa to be Metre '
passing ef an csrder in'faf_uour'a:xf "a
party woufi not ends o£
11:3 pason who is 1%
inordinate de1a3*..V_ in"'s1'.1ch
ohatrucfive tactics; s.on1y=.it xwguld deter
::t11:e.rs who are aiEt5ng'f¢'j§1 from
.
2. dam:-ve to he
means’ f§IltV.:’_’pa:# vVV3(‘d) and 3(a) reads as
below ought 1:: have fimn an
1′ ._opg;1cri1;i3i1.y in the appallant to let-in oral
evidence to prove the
raised by the appellant. The
Ju.dge’5 of the Cuurna below are
g1’os,§:1yen’edinnotuymtham.atterb3r
givim opportunity to prove the: ease, when
he
manna’ wuld not he zier.-1ded’ an the
‘I’mtthe1ea.rnedCivi1Judwofthe
Ccums baiow ought to have held that the
docuxnenm muduced by the appellant is
admitted the more than 30 years old and
such they are lmvm the prmumptism xmluey
under Section ’90 oftha Indian Evidence
The lwrned Civil Judges of the Caurm 5 A
were erred in not upholding the ” ‘
valua. of thc doctflm 4.
appellant, wfii rm 'V bath the parties". 3. Learned
his oonteutiom mnmndg tr:,»:t11§.sAi§ about
the ma: order pass-ad ‘ Trial Judge
and Appenatgz about the
Criminal 34:: of cg-.2=.c: and
also
4. (if the material facta referred
“{§u}2_.X’£§;:,.’ order of the learfi Singla
finality. Conapa-vanafis, which has
ham “*ent$f5§ 55 mt implemented men afaer 35
.. *3 no merit to ac-aapt the submjssitm in
L = guess the findings with regard to pmacution
Section 340 of Cr.P.C and eoat. An even
tm directian isaued by this Court, by a
A/”‘