% . A mnavaagm TALUK
IN THE HIGH comma' or KARRATMM AT BANGALORE
nxmn mm mm am am or MARCH 2009
smronm M N
THE Hownm MR JUSTICE K H 3 L: "
R.8.A. 150.1473 o1=' "2oOs« .: , =
nmwmn: 1 n
N CHANDRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
a) M.C.MANJUNATHA=- 7_
AC}E:47 YEARS :.ALL:
P.;G"PURA HQBLI %
MDOGALA KCJPPALU
A M.AL.wAL1,f1' --_ 571 430
3 * M>1ss.'PI:sHPALATHA
*9/03¢ QHANDRAPPA
AGE! 30 YEARS
_ TR/A*if§3AcHANA HALLI
a 'rug; PURA HOBLI
" Mo0GALA KOPPALU
. "I§.A{":.%i?sR: A-IU@ éiiélsfi,
6. * A umsgmrmn,
" " ': "'---;R'ESPO£\iD}*é§NTS- 2 TO 6 ARE sons 0?
Tkfawno 3733, GOWDARA BASAPPANA
____""GARADI ROAD HEERANA YER! EXTN
T 1' 1-A¥soRE~ 570 012.
MALAVALLI TALUK
MALAVALLI - 571 430. * _
APPE£;LANTS
(BY SR1 ; M s PURUSHOTHAMA RAQ, A1)$(0c;ATE--..I) '
Am);
1.
MRS.MAHADEVAMMA _ –
w/0 NINGAPPA @ SHANKMEAPPA
AGED ABOUT 7/2 YE_A~RS;_ A f ~ V
SINCE DECEASED,A.I35f{_ ‘
ms. (R2 ‘I_’_G—R6_): V
2. ”
AGED A3013?’ 53 YE 1′
3.
AGEI) ABeUT.5%o:’x*EA1§s,_% ‘
4. MAl~I$VI}–EVA, ‘ -_ J
AGED ABQUT 41’YEARS,
‘ A.c;E,;3AB§)!.I’r 38 YEARS,
VAGEB ABOUT 43 YEARS,
MNGAPFA @ SI-IANKARAPPA AND ALL ARE
.. . RESPGNDENTS
(BY SR1 : S. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
the husband of the 16* plaintifi’ and father of p1aitm’ffs# 2
to 6 by name Ningappa @ Shankarappa
absolute owner of the suit schedule of T’ _
said property was mortgaged in fatfoillr::of«,Vt11e _
by the said Ningappa @
behalf and on behalf of his a
regstered Mortgage
for a sum of Rs. 1,Q_O0/ — fossession of
the moltgagefl over to the
Ixlortgageerw the Mortgage
Deed Z is 15 years, which
expired oh. in the meanwhile, the
Vmortgager Shankarappa died and the
V. heirs of the said mortgagor offered to
to the defendant and requested
V z the mortgage and re~deliver the
of the property. He refused to do so. In
a legal notioe issued in this regard, the
. ‘ “elefenderlt has failed to re–delive:r the possession of the
and by Judgment dated 22.12.2001 demeed the
the pxaindds. Against the said judgment and
the LRS. of the Defendant filed « ‘V
Before the Lower Appellate
that, though on the earlier
directed by the AppelI9lte,A’ the
Trial Court on 06.09.2OllVI,»’:t_ide” called on
that day and V. called the
case on fhe defendant and
subsequ;’?l.?1″iltVljf,l’ the judgment, as
such, the’i*edvae for the defendant to lead
evidence. _ Argument was rejected by the
and the Lower Appellate Court
fie-:’the evideflce placed by the pIajI1t:ifi’s
_a:n.dAi’11 melded: of the fact that the defendant did not
__ : evidence, proceeded to concur with the
the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed
ll ileiby’ “lthe LRS. of the defendant. It is against this
y
12
judgements of the Courts below do not suflfor ”
perversity or illegality or irregularity.
6) Under the above circumstances.
any question of law muchless V of
law having bccninvolved in this appoal.
no grounds to admit this appear Ltizf:
KGR*
