High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S.Ashoka Industrial … vs Smt Fathimabi Since Deceased By … on 11 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S.Ashoka Industrial … vs Smt Fathimabi Since Deceased By … on 11 November, 2010
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 1 IT" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DRJUSTICE K. BHAKTHAXfAII'SuI$ifA_:V" 

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1466/2010 I3;-INJ} I

A/W

MISC. CVLNOS.14089/140-AS:’–.II409IO;fI0 ” I

BE)! WEEN

M/S.ASI~IOKA INDUSTRIAL –
COOPERATIVE SOCIET1E’S–.LIivIJT”‘–ff
NO. 28 OF NO. 126/16071,’ ” * I
ARABIC COLLEGE POST; *

KAEUGONOANA 1
BANGALORE.–560..O45′<__""— I A

REGISTERED U.NI_)jjER"–~ "

KARNATAKA CO+OPERAiPIVE SOCIETIES

ACT, {THENCALLED MYSORE CO~OP SOCIETIES
UNDER 'NO.929=A_R3A EATEI) O5/O6/1957, R/BY

– “”AITS’PPE’SII’3Ez\IT SR1 M RAMU S/ O M MANI
AGED A_,£5~O’L}T’ 40 YEARS
‘~’-.E’H«E A:3H*QK4§~I.NDUSTR1AL CO–OPERATIVE

SOCIETY No.28, ASHOKA NAGAR
KAD..UG.__ON-DANAHALLI,

_ _ VARABIC COLLEGE POST,
” A I ‘EANGALOPE–56o 045. APPELLANT

‘IfVB’y Sn: JANARDHANA G, ADV.)

” HIXINQMT FATHIMABI

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

WHC3 ARE ALWAEY
ON 1§’EOCRD AS PLAINTIFFS 2 TC) 8

2. SMT, REHANA EEQJM, MAJOR
W/C’ LAKE ABDUL GHANI
SMT. ZAKIA BEGUM, MAJQR’, 1.
WIC) V MQ fi T

3. smfinamsaa BEGUM,– §5MOE”

W! G T KHURISDULLA

4′ am. saysam %
WIQMUJEEBULLA. % V

6. SMT; HAYE%_BE-Zétgfhii; MMjk%”*kf£3R%
W5

*3. sm: i
mania, 5:210 Ei’A_Ed D Htissam.

3, BEQEM. MMQR
wzcmwhi-mm!

He}: is im Wm Am S

” 2 8,.jA,RE.. crmnfifmz 0? DECEASED
ism; Mammmn 1-wssam
Rim’ §*€>.:é. Hem szmm,

Itfi§’LVq$iEI%..R§aM, NORTH
mcm ~E3E_$fI’RIC’I’, Tamxam
2; mt aim PA HQLIDER 1:1-mRs:~m:Lm,

~ « Aemsnmirr 71 YEARS,
RIZAT NO. 317, 15% Acnm,
_ 9%? 3% BLOCK, JAYAHAGAR,
a3AmALm~s5m1 1

T Q. STATE OF KARNA’I’AK£s

REWESENTED BY TF3
cm? SEQRETARY
vmmxa smmaag BANGALQRE

3

16. 811$? Sfi.VI’l’HRI DAMQDHARAK

3.1.. cmmvmnw mra
axe cmxmvaxnn
smcfi DECEASEB BY LES

as.) am mam 3/as RAJA

b} mmaax s/c: RAJA

e) Sm EIVYA D10 RAJA

cl) mg? 310 EMA

e} mzsm am RAJA;

ALL ARE I-mans, MAJGRS ~
No.10 mm 11(aj.TO 11{¢3%AE’53%
Rf AT A«NHET;3– BESAVAEAGAR,
KADIIGOHEAf{AIJ.f,.!?iFEABEf;»CQLLEGE POST

12 81:) Kfififlfifig madam,

ma smn¢G~,aa§ mnmvpmgmw,
BASAVARAL’:a§.R; i
Kazjzlaaxmflhz-1&LLI,
‘COLLEGE “POS’I;

J

13.
g -.I3cI:A$ED BY IRS.

za’:. mm we LATE Asmvamm,
mm E? as mags.

” = . b} BA}<fi't'ARAJ,

am LATE Asmvamam,
AGEB mm? 44 Yams}.

cg PAHDHARM,

Sm IATE fi:.SER’VATH&M,
mm mm? –:2 mags,

d) SMT. Béfifififiaifim

D] C) LBIFE ASIRVfi;’I’I-1%,,
9:633 ABQUT 46 Y’.E§5.}7<'S,,

e; Sm'. mm mxzszx
D; 0 I.A'I'E ASIRVA'I'I-IAM,
AGE§ Asmi' 59 mafia
I} SMF. VM¥§
DIS LATE ASIRVATHAM,
&GEE ABOUT 44 mags; V

ALL ARE msmrm AT mmmééafimw, * Q Y % ,
BASAVANAGAR, . , ~

ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
Rfismunfims

AAAA
'RE§}IJL?J?«V..F1RS?f'2%PI'.E;§L mm U13 95 Rims: rm
RULE: 91: c?c%=%,jTAGAsf3sT TEE mmmnr AND
DEGREE_}I)fi'IEDi'1;'29,*?;.201G PASSEfi an EA No.2 IN
ma.xm5?5; 193'? '=*jQIi1'°'I'i-E mg 93 Tim xv mm
arr? &%s.gss.;ms mmag mmsmamz, (ecu

" 3}A%,AreE¢.r12;<.:':*12q'c+ 3!: N32] 19 mag UREER mama

rsa£ii:ai::;k%TjL%%k¢Vm.m.14es9;1% ES mm mama

$1343.15} C.P.C.E ?R&YBiIG TFG GRART LEAVE: 3%
'W FEE ABOVE AWI.IQA'£'IC3%§ fififi 25%

ccm"1'a$T "mm mmx ex mam.

mm. cwfixmozic 13 mm Urmm OR§ER
44 mm 5 mar: saunas: 51 $14' mm. mama rm

STAY TEE J[I'DGBa$»HT Aflfi DEEZREE E'-WSSEE EY Tim

ADDL. CIVE Jiiflflfig BAIVGAIADRE 3*!'

C),S.HG;15?6i 198?' DATE-D 20! 'Ff 201.3%

Tifi Regular Firat AT} aiming with iviisc. QVLN
agpficatiarm oomrg 92:1 far erdem this éajgg tha Ceurt
éfiiixfimii tm faékwfigz

JUQGMEH1.'

Misc. CVL.14G3§[ 10 is aa app].1mt.i;3;:

appellant undw E§m.15»1 azf

and Decree datafl 23/*7; 201$ z::fks¢xg¢.};%5?6;sir A %

on the file ofXV Aden, Cit3;…£ii§iI & at
Bfialam. The a.pphca' an afidavit

cf M. Rama gig' M. 20f the appefiant
s::3<::iaty. mg that he is the
absoiigte fmasurim 4 acrw 9 guntas
in Sy. was p ufiar sab

dam: It fa mm stated that

to 8 are fufiy aware of the fact that the

bahw ts Ssciety am that £115 seaciaty

g fi:3:;:nc&n suits agakm: tfwmd in that unit

& Q Elefiipomlcnta-1 he 3 have stated that may have fikecl

fir daciaratian and Phssessimn of the suit

gchcdizlse memiy. , the appcuan: fiaci an

appfigmtiun in the suit gnfaying m implmd as {mas sf tha
ficfmdanh Em: the trial Cemrt rejected the impficadixg
appliaafinn. Tlmflm, the apmfiant: has nu other

L

aitarxatixra and afiwaious ramedy mmpt ta cfggflmge
the Judi and Dream:-ea.

appellant swim peimzhsisn to garemre 4_

ixnpfid Judit.

3. Rwpondazxta 1 to 3 mg M a.s.:mws? L

on cm fih of xiv Add}. kjc§;;+ci§iik%;1::dg¢ gas’ 1rm’ :


Raapondmxm 9 in  .1_3    i's::e;_'  axxd
Wm WW" » mm mm»     hm: hm

Sy.N.126 V’ Bangazm Hm-ch

9
in cam sf thc piahztifi am

FJWZ1 and gut marlefi Ex.

;P;’£2 {1’wc:5.–.E’..«%9..A B.W3.1 ta 4 were aamsm” and

to 3-:33, The ma; Sourt arm

and pausizig the evidmme 332111

an rmrd to this camluafiga that the

are ahsohxtz owner: of the suit scheduk

and am: géranteci permanent iI’3j11%’&3n

Elm d from g witlx the
plaintifis §6&8§§§i¢£1 311$ azghymazzt at’ rim wit acmdum

% 2 m 5 (am xaspmamm Q
E.

to 13 hmemj haw beam dimcted tn

ucmstruciaed sheds and mum in the

and deliver vacant

plam’ tifls w’ithm’ Em II1iI3I3.t1’B

thy: p}aint.ifi’s are emttitkxl p&ei¢oe2igVr»;: 6ifvVfi:z¢§ yam’ ‘ L’

through the

S. In in favour tsf
Rawpondw1gia_fi”:.::¥.>’} 8_:é:,a to 13 is
wt 5 to prefer appeal
as and devcrem. In omw
arui éxawae is mag
13¢: 13 am mt against rm

Unda auch sizvmtanmms, the

Iomxmsmndi ta seek perwaes” inn ta

$8 aaamt impwiw jtmmmt am

‘$7 ” ii,”

5.. in the: rank, Misc. CVL. 14%9{10 filw under
Sm.3.51 ::fC.P.Ci, eeefiag pnaermissian to mm appeal as

agaimt the. imumad Judi’: and Beam is rejwted.
1&3 awml in EEFA Haiéééf 13 in aka

mm, mum Mm CVL. Ko.14090;m fiiedfq-satay

elm mt survive for eomsicierratian and 4,

aewrdingly diapeaed cfii

Lr

%