Karnataka High Court
Kashamma vs Mahadevappa on 13 October, 2008
-um. 'r'1Ir'Ia\.r\ a gunman | -uwruuap 1.4: nu-I.!\I'I.r"'|lr-'|l\J"I l1l\3l'l \.«\J|-JR] Ur' RHKIVAIAKA C
IN THE: HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA,'~ _"r._
Cf.-iRCU£'¥' BENCH AT GULBARGA V
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF' (}C'1'OB'::f«:jR.,jV'£2:{3'e£)8'
BEFORE'.
'THE HON*BLE MR. JUSTICE "AQJIT J}%€;:;NJA;;"%%.I% "
WRIT pE:;'m'_IoN N0 1 1 2(3:;:§;r'%{.el};»4§(::.%:iiV_
AGED ;u3'z*:::U:' 57 YEARS x
R/G__.Bi"B.Ailjlfi}. '"i'A'£gUIj{
G:.ILB,;u§_'
% Cfs/éza MAHADEVAPPA
T ~ f AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
. 'LWR/O BIBBALLI SEDAM TALUK
GULBARGA DIST 585 222
V» a mutual'! 'NJ!
nnuwuumv-1 HIUH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC
3 PRAKASH
3/0 MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O BIBBALLI samm TALUK
GULBARGA ms? 535 222
-4 SHEKAMMA
D/0 MAHADEVAPPA .
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O BIBBALLI SEDAM~fI_'ALUia:__ A
GULBARGA DIST 5s5'O'R:a.22
GANGAMMA
1:)/0 MAHADEVAPPA _
AGEB ABOUT 38 YEARS... ,
R/O BIBBALLISED1-KM CC
GULBARGA msfr 222. g
SAVI'FRAMNiA---.V 3
:3/C: MAfiADEX[;3PPf§;: A
AGED Agour 38'~"'§'-E.)ARS' C_
R/O BIBBALLI SEIDAM 'naLm;...
GULBARGA'-DIST 535* 22,9
S{}SHIh:fAV BA; é
we NARSAPFA
'~AGE}}"}. A3c,:m§38 YEARS
R/__(} }12§2.{:£:§§3RE,_ {:1-IINCHOLLI TQ
GULBARGA I?§*1S'3.'"585 30?
'i3j*W','.'O SiAJ3£*;N'NA
AGE?)-~ABOUT 36 YEARS
'RIUMATMUDU
C % -<:H:'1*rAPUR TALUK
* j <;;1;.Jf:;BARGA DIST 585 2 11
A1At
V ..A§}E'D "ABQVUT. 38 ' ";'EAJf§S
RfO'vBIBB?xLL§';*S'EDA.M TALUK
GU1,BAI?GA%£)1%:*3fr"'585 222
RAJASHREE " V %
we GLENDAPEA HQSMANI
, AGEILABOLIT fievmafzs
R /Q"1E3IBABA§LLI, SEDAM TALUK
V__GULB&_GA £)IST 585 222
MALLAP?;§"%%%-L V
S/O"'CxU}}a"DAI'PA HOSMANE
_ 'VAGED 34 YEARS
V BIBBALLI, SEDAN! TALUK
'=GULB~:_3RGA ms'? 535 222
""."Ji§GADEVI
1. " B10 GUNEJAPFA HOSMANE
V r jgAGED Asom 26 YEARS
R/' O SIBBALLI, SEDAM TALUK
GULBARGA D18'? 5853 222
"'"""-W ' In-'II F uvunl vr I\F|I(!\I!~\!I-\lU-\ HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH
16 SOMASHEKHAR
S] O GUNEAPPA HOSMANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O BIBBALLI, SEDAM TALUK
GULBARGA DIST 585 222
k
(By Sri SANJEEV KUMAR, <3. PAT1L§kVAD\§.%FoR«% %
SR1 PRAVEEN KUMAR AI.)V.: : %
THIS W213'. FILED UNQER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE (3ONSTI'§*U'3fION;' P'R1§\Y}'N_G TO" THE ORDER
DT.25.11.2006, PASSEI} 0N:T%1.%,A.':~¢0,x;*'Emma u/ORDER 1
RULE 10 r/w SEC.151LT~QF%a::PC,%~:NVE'D1? No.04/2000, BY
'~.§:t'océ:edir1gs, which is dismissed. fl
'{
THE CIVIL _"-;I§JD(?rii2""-{L}'R;I)VN}g; SEDAM, VIDE
ANNEXURE--A. 1 %
CONSE(jUE:'1;3'§§;§";%l;L{}§i?'Ti{1§';§\PPLICATION, i.e., 1A
N<:«.v 1r1L1:n[%u_;oR I1-RULE' 10 r/w_SEc:':oN 151 012' cpc,
IN FDP N().G4/2000, QN Tm: mm OF THE CML JUDGE
(JR.DVN_);-, AT4'sED;:fM_, ' 4 A' ~
THIS P}s;*1fI';i1<fii1~z t ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B'V-GROUP THIS DAY, THE coum' MADE
.....
ORDER
.’ is applicant in LA. V. The said
I’_j…;§.pp1icat;i0:%’isvf11ed urxder Order 1 Rule 10 R] W Section
to gat herself impleaded in a final decree
unn-1 unau Inl’\II..JiI.JlI\I\…n.: …. …___ _
n……..uuruur-nu-1 – uni: g-uphaullll 5.17′ l\P\KIVf’\’I\I\’\ MIUI1
applicant] pefifioner shail some on record as suppiementai
respondent in the fina} decree preeeeC1i:V1gé{.V: “é’§1l:. other
questions regarding status of the
whether the property is a ééf AV
Csundappa. or is 21 joint famiiy ar e.”_I<€§pt'*
deciried during an enquiry. '= V V. V' V'
Rule is issued
vge