N Chandrappa vs Mahadevamma on 3 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
N Chandrappa vs Mahadevamma on 3 March, 2009
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
%    . 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*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *