High Court Karnataka High Court

Mahadevaiah S/O Karigowda vs Venkataramu on 13 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mahadevaiah S/O Karigowda vs Venkataramu on 13 September, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
.iQ

IN THi~L HIGH COURT or KAIQNATAKA AT BAN(_3_.AL()Rii
DATED THiS THE 23"" DAY OF sEP'ng:M13IavR%:§5;(:--1[(%2%%,
BEFORE V "  

THE HONBLE MR. 1usTIcE:%*2s;N'ANL3, B§;"Ej{ A!{E§;:{')§')\;"'.

REGULAR SECo'r{a APP' E.A:L.N()_ 7912:,'  wda,
  .,V_R.€-siding :1: Ktwngarallanjaliahna Hundé.

8



[J

.I;1yapL1ra Hob} i,
Mysore Taluk W 57l 001.

6. Nanjaiah, Majot',
S/o Lingaiah.
Koitgarzmé,-1I1_ja iahna H 1,: nd i.
Jayapura Hobli,

My.'~;0I'e Tatluk W 571 001.       ; 

(By Shri.S.A.Maruthi Prasztd. Advt>cititei'i-'tj):3C;1\ie:;to'i'fR.e§pomlent)

This appeal is filed uiidef'-:=sect.i_on li(JE)«.ot' Cotie of Civil
Procedure, l9()8, zagaaiitst jt:{igi1ie.rit aintiédeueeiiidtiited 3 E. [.2009
paassed in R.A.Nt).56/2U()4iTonirthe':?ile'--tjfT_th»e_ H Additional Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn), Mysore. al-lt)Vw'i.h'gf the-, itpIpe_zt-i setting aside. the
judgment and d4eC're_e d;:t'etli'27¥.2._2{):(;'4. paissgeii in O.S.No. 106/ 1992
on the file of the tjtciviltttoga (}ii*.D:1*)i&--J~MFC., Mysore.

 'apfieal 'E§t3'iniirtgi"()i1 foi"'Ad:nissit)r1 this day, the Court
tlelivered the f()iiiiv';}"v5{il'1'g7I  ., ' '

 ",~fUDGNIEN'l'

   H-t:'..Aal'(v,iAlh6 lie.i1'i"nccl counsel for the atppellzjnt.

  'iii."_f:..TAheii.p1'esent' appeal is filed by the plaintiff before the

Q ti'iz:EiCoutit.i The suit was for redemption of mOl'[gE;lf._E€. The trial

 CV.7o{in--<.=¢ ltzgtvéng decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, the same

 \A§'a.% challenged by the respondents herein before the lower

5

appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has addressed the

pleadings and the evidence and has found that the ~p”le1:i_’t”tti’i’–f was

claiming_ an extent of l acre I2 guntas of land. f’l’l1e..ha;:;ii.<; o_f'tth'e4_

claim was; that 26 guntas of the same'"wax1 pe_41'cl1a.-;_ed'.ttiideir afsjalej'

deed Ex.P3 and another 26 ib€Ll.iil'C+iillA'i}..e3('i
Lll1l'CgiSI't3l"t3Li Will. lix.P(). the acre
gunta:~;, in all, was Ex.P5. The
lower appellate Ct)t:i't on on record
has found between the oral and

docti me ntary. evidence ot"-.the.' p-lairitt i

3.7. 4- VV'1at' Mats'-~..p'urr:'l1t1sed under Ex.P3 was only 9.6

*e'Li11tij::s.;..t)l' lahd,and7'wh';-it was claimed to have been bequeathed

i"t.1nd"er Ef')t:;P(.$'~the Will was not establislted as being the remaining

i"'.e:x't-eat (')'f':iL1':()_ gte.ii'it'as of the suit property, in which event it was not

availableih f'(';r"i the plaintiff' to have 1noi"tgag_ed 1 acre I2 guntas.

2 wlhzjlt was claimed under Ex.P5. Under Ex.P5 itself it was found

that the boundaries of the suit schedule properties and the

fa