High Court Karnataka High Court

Krishnappa vs C R Basavaiah on 2 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Krishnappa vs C R Basavaiah on 2 February, 2010
Author: A.S.Pachhapure
1 RESA :301.e';2;07

IN THf:§ BEG}-I COURT OF K1-\RN£\'FAE.{A AT BANGA£.ORiE§.~.__'

DATED THIS THE 92% DAY 0;? FEBRUARY 20 1.0  »

BBZFO R1-I

THE H0N'B1..£«: MR.JUS'E'ICE3 A.s<.:3r1.c:1ar~1;'_A}'$i,%R:é»'   

REGULAR SEZCONI) APPEAL Nc3..3G 1 6 'OF 2Q 'o7    

BETWEEN

1. KRISHNAPPA,
S/OKARIAYYA.   V
AGED AB0U'Tf53 YEARS,' - 

2. PAPANNA;    '

s/0 KAR1AY7§_H;, 4  
AGED-ABOI_I'1'  YEARS; " 

3.   
S/O. JAvARA1A:»1_;' .  .
AGED 43uY§;ARs,  -

_. .4. ¥.ia:éhT.APPA§ ~   V

1. « /"oz.'-~.aAv,ARA1AH;"'*"
.  _A(3§,}:;. 45» VEARS,

5.  ~. .a,AS}xgfR.R}';fJ  _.
' »_S/O.V.-.¥A'v'f';RAIA}~i.
AGE--D 40 YEARS,

M' "    = : %1:AR;YAppA.

 S;/0. SEDDAGALU BORAEAH,
"AGED 70 YEARS.

T    PANGALAEAH.

S/U. SELNNA IDOEDDAEAH,
AC-'rEi'E.': 633;» 'KEZAE S.



2 RSA 3016/CY?'

ALL ARE} R/AT CI*IO'WI)AIAI"INADOIDIDI.

KAILAI\ICI*IA IIOIBLII

RAMANAGARAM TAI.-UK ~« 57} 51 1.

BANGALORE DISTRICT.  APPEI.LAN"E'/ S

IAPPELLANTS 3, 4 & 5 ARE PER?»/IITI7E3'D TO BE 
TREATED AS IARS. OF IJECEASED IDEFISNIDANT NOA.  
AMENDED 'v".C.O. DATICD 03.01.2011; 

{BY SRI. 'I'.A_ KARUMBAIAH. NR. G§RIiS1~IA,AI)V'S.}|~--  *' 

AND

c.R. BASAVAIAH.

S/0. REVANNA,

AGED ABOUT 01 YEARS,

NO.2202, SR-R CROSS.

EXTENSION. = ~   1, ;  I 
CHANNAPATNA TALUK W 571 51  2  .';QF,E':3PONDENT/S

{BY SRI.  ., ' -I

TI%IISD*~RSA "IS.0,"FII,R::D UNDER SECTION 100 OF CR0

 IXCaAINS'I' ";IIRI{UDG:«§;IvI'ENT AND DEGREE DATED 28.08.2007
"PASSED  RA-...N().5/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.

I3I_S'I"'BI_1CT_V"<._AV;.}»UD_G§2. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BAI'~§GA_L~O'RE_;-.DISMISSING THE APPEZAL AND FILED AGAINST

  THE ;J_UDGEMDENT AND DEGREE DATED 06.10.2001 PASSED

IN O.S'.NOV.5S;"I1992 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE

~  jg  _ {SR.DN'.) RAIVIANAGARAM.

II"TEI.IS I-{SA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION. THIS DAY,

  COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:



3 1:13;», 39 1 es /9'?

ORDER

appefiarlis and 1.1h<–3ir counsel am absseni.

calied twice in the ciay. It appears that they have 11(34″:§’r1i.€;:1’f:é:*é;{ ‘

prosecute this appeal. appe:-3a} is 0f”t:h–:s yeztir Ii’1i_’.’r1e

cir<:umstance:3, the appczal is dism'i.ssed bias" §:1_<éfé¢111{;~.