Lakshmamma vs Sri R Nanjegowda on 20 February, 2009

__ ___ ___ ___--- ---_---- --. ------r-u-u-urn l||\r[l vgppufiu 9|' nfifififiim flfljfi    

IN THE: HIGH cousvr or xaanamoa,   -
nwrazn THIS THE 20" DAY oz'Asfzaagjawfifi'_;2fi'a9*.    A

BEFORE 

THE HON'BLE MR. JusTxc5_ H;H,xAsAM9HE3 gas}

Rsa   No. 2sz5%12a0Ls   

smwvmmn ' Aw_ -,'
w/o LATE" vI§H.nmnTz:sownfi..,_  " 
man man? 16.231   1»
( SHE ''13 MT (.'E".'.-.A1HZ'[V'3=l(;'»"'A'£-l':"BENEFITS
uunngv sz1nIo3,_t;1'r_I'z1:r¢ 'sH1g).='
-2: sn1.m'Amna 3.50' 1-mix A
vI':;I-IA;::z.uTEs;:z:y'I3.Ig,'%v%V_TV * '4
man zuaou-r  
3; Puma:-mnmraa '@;PAfi=AcH1 %
S/O LA'}'.E 'l'1SHAlL'!\N'T~-BGOFDA
I:k(§E1).ABOUT_lO 'mans

* _  VILLAGE.
'   HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA
 'risL.U=£g " MPJJHYA DISTRICT

. . . APPELLANTS

 {ex SR I :DESHRA.'J Ann 9.c1-mncnnnnnvn amour, AnrvsJ

" "six . n.nm.:umo|ruA
" 3/0 LATE K.RAMEGOW'DA,

AGED ABOUT GEYEARS
R/A 110.159, LAKE!-{MI

NIVASA, 1" CROSS,

Ob/\/'



 '~  111.34%':-iVtY,_'

.:.-us--. vr -u-unnsnnn mun uuueu   I-IIGI-I COOK!' OF IAINATAKA HIGH COUITOF KAINATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COIJI

these two documents are not produced bei':3rei.fl't:lia4

Trial court. Then turn documents are 
the do.fandants._ on the othar__nnandA  in
nave produced Ex.D.5 an endoraementiv  

orrice or Tahsildar stating:-..V.that'v.tharel"V:in'Q_=neVVVsuch 

file in their office  tn'  and
m:.E.12.aoth the -cnnrte  tn consider
l:x.D.5. in th  the courts
below  relying on a
disputed  .1n:V'eg:x;'9.11 and 53.9.12.
Both  consider l:".x.D.5.
In  and clear evidence on

record, iii=nm;n    below committed an

V commissioner report specifies the
 H exietence  alleged react as contended by the
,v},.'§e£§ndfinte.A But, the name is not cansiderod by
A.11"n§tn-Etna courts below. In additiqn to the court

it  -mgnmlieeionere report, the pleintifl has produced
 Village Hep Ex.P.9 showing the. location of

sy.No.613 and 3y.No.61-I. Again both the courts

below committed an error in not considering the

O4/V'



- ---"-" -"-- ---,.#- -'-----" --.- -'-- -- -r--'N-1-'H --V" ----u vr --I-uvnlnnn ruwn I-uulu ur Iuuuuunxn |-nan coon

commisaionur report and the survey nap ;¢§&fic§dV
by the plaintifif. For fha reasons sta§§d @§§¢§;f*
substantial question at law -£;am§&  fib§§i }is, 

answered accordingly. For ;th£ Tfea§afiaQ fifiitfidf

above the following:

APPEAL Is HEREBY AL'Lt§nf5.fp;_"  AND
nmcaam: 2  ___;é$--L€>§:"fi';A.3412004 urn.
2.8.200

§”Véfi’.S.S:R;fi¥¢;_:.’B\;’ Junaa: ( sa.mmJ
3aIaAHv§;AP5§ffi1§’V_~V;s@.” gun DEGREE PASSED III
0.8. 3§’w_1997′-._ fi?i’p;: *~.gjE,”;«:5″.20154 PASSED BY CIVIL
aun6¥3~:.A %Aa1=.:” 5§?’N~} ‘-sVIii.nANsAPA’mA ARE HEREBY sm-

“-As1′ a§i’. 2,3-!A’I”!? ER IS”””R’Ev!4ANDED 1’0 THE TRIAL coumr ma

:”*ais.én$A–;.. IN Aocoaunmzfiz ‘ItITH- uur mm

9ho§*IbI:q¢’V”;a;;sA ‘ o99oa’rurm’~1 To BOTH ma: saunas.

_ Sd/’-

I udge

srm