High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr Ameer Pasha vs Smt Mehrunnisa on 12 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mr Ameer Pasha vs Smt Mehrunnisa on 12 December, 2008
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
IN T35 3163 COURT OF K&RRA2AKA, BANGALORE

zmwzn smxs exam: 12" DAY or nacmnn, 2oo3_...__

BEFORE

was HOWBLE MR. Jtrsavxcs K.bIaI€ESHAVA3§Z§§;;R.A'.¥§P1;.5?é5;---TA "' 

REGULAR EIRST APPEAL :«zo.1g5 e o§'_."2'ioe$C;;s 9)w  

BETWEEN

1 pm AMEER EASHA  
s/o LATE ,!~mER£.fAN smzzzts
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS  '
R/OE' mzsnm BLQCK  _ .
KR mega, zerarsagx--._nI::*r   1.

2 aazgzmsssx '- _ 5 '  
says A%ER*E?AS?1'1%"," "A529 "A395? 14.5 '$223213
R/OE' m:r$Lm'--BLocK§  ' 'V  '
KR  éjsixsoam 3.;~:sT._. jj 

3 myaz PASHA. «
3,10 A1.~$E12"'-_9As1_-IA _ . 4
man Agent: '23 mks
axe? MUSLIM B:.g>ar. .
KR I~1AGA3.2',~ zgsysoaa A315?

4 *.F33£RQ2"*?AS"H.A," .53/o Abmzz pasaa.
A333' wear: 2:.' « 
RIG? ' §;:Us1=;1s£.V_B:;.a.a".£< _}.
KR NAGAR, mésoazbxsm

its warm £35223 ' 
_ .555; A1532}-3, Pmm
'*  33593?' 29 YEARS
 _a;*€§E'VM3:3L:M BLOCK
KR §3,§L£§AR, 2423023 nzsr A9PELI..AN'2S

..._:.:§s¥w mmmmsax. <:.s. sammam



SM? MEBRUNNISA

D/Q TIPPU SAKEB
AGED ABQUT 40 YEARS
KIA? THIPPUR
KASABA flOBLI

KR xaaak mALv A ; \  RE§3§HnExTf"» 

rams REA IS FILED ¢x$ 96 R)w,oR9Eau§i,~gfiLE  

2 0? c9c AGAIRST $32 aunaaggfir AND-DEGREE DATED
19.92.2097

aasszn :3 os,§o,155£2oo2,”-an.’ THE
CIVIL JUDGE {SR.EK;)EBUHSURf~$ECREEING was suzm
FOR syscxsxc ynaroamznca as coN$RAs$;_

This Regulax :?ir££«Vg§eafi.J@¢fi1ng an for

orders, tags ,&ay;_ thé wccu::W;ae;ivaxad the
following: .3 ;f § .3 a .*

,v ~~~~ »._f; a*;= “gfiBGEEEH?

Nofie_”apfiea£$ –§h ?béhalf of the aypellani.

Gffige has xaiséa fibjéction that as the value of

“*,$hQflwsflbjeqt mfififiéfi of this appeal is only

‘7§3,i}2$;§G§ffi”;tha appeal is sat maintainable

béffiie this<§ourt in View of sectian 19 {1} of

T_:he xaigataka Civi; Caurts Act, as amnded. by

V' :.fj£',»é§£:ia1taka Act 257299': which came: into forae on

*T=é2.$;2os?&

&

U)

2. ?his appeal is by the defe::da.;;1V:’3r’T.;i.n

G.S.155/2802 an the file cf Civil

iiumaur, decreeing the suit af the.._,’§*Lfa.;p§$fi-d,e:;i;? b

piaintiff for specific 1;§;e2:f’_$”:”V.. fhe Judgfgyférxt

appeal inéicates that adtx-5:-‘=ding *%:,_c§ ‘=.t_VT.f;e cf V

the plaintiff, the._dafenaa§:§*.¢ntégea “into an
agreement of sale %i£§ flag §;g;ne;f: an 8.2.2661
agreeing to us=e:;13.._ gxroperty fer a
total -. Thus the
valuevVV.43£_ cf the suit in the
CO22rt:V1,%,,§e1*3$VL?TV ‘ V h “R.’:’:: . -3. , 25 ,. 999/ ~ . iifkzerefore ;

the va.im=z cfv ‘ matter of this appeai. is
a1s§’Rs,1;é5,§§d/–? u

§fl _fiy_ anandment act zsxzoov gmcuniary

the flistrict Court to entertain

ap§ée?..’,i:A.} a’gaiz1st; the judgment passed by the

u””, “§Qur£v-$f the Civil Judge, {Sr.Bn.} has been

‘” enh§ncea fram Rs.1,ee,ea0/– upts Rs.16,6G,G$$f».

4. No doubt as per section 5 Qf ._ ?;he

axnezzdment act, the provisions of

act: are not applicable to pending ;

The judgment under apyefil ‘1

19.2.2001, 1.9. prior to. c:o1zzi$i1g ;’izztcx faxée “:>£t

amen&nant. However: ‘been
Fresented befora V er; “‘~1’2’ .j9.2ecs.
‘Eherefore, the appegéj.’ as on the
date af arxaenémntx
Under {ices not
lie b@f9,t*fe7″v.V*1;}:.’i:;1;::A_ ought ta have been

presaigtad. ~..’!:: -:~:§£-“‘§:>;*~s; 2 ‘ axle-. _:écncéx’ned Bistrict Judge .

Acc<f.£x"»flinz3;y._, appeal papers are ordered
tO_' §3i@: __f}:«:.=:turn'le7dv.._.t_<:2' the learned counsel for the

'agfipelivgnt"£é§;:'.__p:r:esentatj.on befere groper Ccurt.

Sd/..

Judge

…sésKi1?12es