Loading...

Nagaraja vs Lakshminarayanamma on 8 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Nagaraja vs Lakshminarayanamma on 8 April, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
 

 U5."  O '

IN THE HEGH COURT OF KAR1'~EATAI), V DISMISSING '-TI-1E_ SUIT "FOR RECOVERY OF

THIS cap. ce_M::§§c3' QM. éoé:.QEARé2\;e,"'r§-£iS""eAY, THE COURT
MADETHEFouxmmne;Vv~;_ «;.f«_"_*, _'

 _ I I   1a,I,I':13-E, E .12

This oixéiseeene-aissenenpeetaon is directed ageing: the

,_vjjIudgenvéeIi~1t§Iecfee"'tié!:ed 28"' February 2003 passed

an on the file of the xm Additionai

I  V' ' ' SmaII II3,eueeeI  Bangalore.

 ,   case of the petitioner herein - plaéntiff is

 ۤIaIt,AA,_I'deeeaeed KondannalKondaiah, husband of first

Ifiwspundent herein and father of minor respondents 2 to 4

JZN HJCIB Ctotm’ €1FKARJ\EAT–A3CA~AT~RA?~Ié3+%%.F)R4? €}:I1I:P3\In$~_’&65{f%{)f)’3§

.,-.~AREs§5o.r{iaENTe” If-e__ : I I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE C.R.P.No.1368!’2()03
3

herein, had borrowed a sum of Re.2C,OO0l– as loan.t.rorh-..vv

petitioner for improving his business in hair

cum-shaving and in coneiderafion of ‘ha2;.ing–‘_4lreoeixfiedlithe’.

said loan, late KondennalKondaiah__ ”

demand promissory note and”v1oonsiderefi_onV
favour of petitioner agreeing to”tepejg:Vthe_earne”topether
with interest at 21% per transaction
was witnessed deceased
Kondannal elithout discharging
any part of his life time and

however-, hetjhesvlleft’ihehiindlléoonsidereble properties and

___that, vreeponVdehta___’l_to 4 being the legal heirs of late

have inherited his properties.

Thereforet’ case of petitioner – plaintiff that,

to 4 herein are liable to pay the loan

‘ to the petitioner together with interest thereon. lt

‘ further oase of petitioner that, tn spite of making

repeated demands and %«eet to respondents to make

“Te ‘mt: moi: riotim’ or KARNATAKA AT eAw<w.o123=, €T,R.P.?*~lo. : eemnea

IN THE men comm OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE C.R,P.No.13(i8§20<33
5

Kondannamondaieh. Further, the respondents have

centended that, late Kondannemondaiah has not

behind any property and as such, they heve.’ _

succeeded to any of the estate 3

Kendannamondaieh and when they7,ha:ge’..ndt’etieceededd

to any preperty or estate of”{e;te. Ker
they are not iiabie to dieeherge..en’3r._ef.,_Vthe.d’et§tfs late
Kendennemondaieh. specifically
sentence that

much less the Smit: b_et5tie,r;er and requested

to dismssemee s.;:stx.~;;::éjd n

4. ‘¥’?1ue*~..g$etitienjefr.,.v tie.”-~eubstentiate his case before

“the S.§fi:a|i;>_A.;(;2eueeeA has examined himseif as PW1

Vane etee two witnaees as PVVS 2 and 3 and

i got’r:1_e:rked.’de«z:,{1ments at Exs.P1 to P6 and closed his

‘ and tfée respondents in support of their case, have

A éx3mie.ed first respondent as DW1 and closed their side.

Vt Iiffhei Trial Cuurt after hearing the ceunset representing

/9

es trite: mesa acxum” 0:2 ~x<wAze+Awcié«A «AT em\Je~A~'r.aef-: €f,tl'?.t~!n'.t"368f'2 om

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE C.R.P.No.1363l20()3
2

the same has been succeeded by the lega_|____.

reprmentativee of deceased respondent, A’

respondents herein. The petitioner, except ”

reiiance on Ex.P6 — joint sale deed dated ‘4*”« Marcfi

purchased by late Kendaiah_

Keehavaiah, has not produced
in eupport of his case. Court
observed that, as, per .”.’—petitioner,
deceased ‘V during the year
2000 and the property
stated herredx’peed’ejberohaeed by deceased

KondannalKoraduaiahVV”ia and there is a gap of

:.v..eVbto’ut vyears !n5e’iwe_e_nv the date of purchase of the

Abearipg’::’:’N.o.32, Sharavathinagar, 60ft. Road,

id2.,V.vPattegarepa}ya?’Main Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore by

Kondari’naIKondaiah and his brother, Keehavaiah

date of death of deceased Kondannamondaiah.

‘j;~fxr:{;o§’dingly, the Smail Causes Court dismissed the suit

/L

IN Ti:LE 3-1}CiI~:I CTGERT C3? KARNATAKA «AT RrAN€3’r:«§¥~.€)RF. (73-.Re.~¥3.+érr.H6§§f3E%f}%

1N THE HKGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE C.1LP.No.1368?20Q3
H

Fetitiener has mieerabiv failed te erove that. respondents ._

‘i ‘re 4 have inherited the property of deceeeeoi’.._’:’_:’._V_

Kendenna!Kondeieh and that, they are iiabie to V1-L:–.i:__Vj: _

debt ef the deceased borrower Kendann_e!Keh’d’a%ei_rj:: ii

ewe petitioner. it is significant to hate T ‘-1′

evaiuetion ef the ore! and Vdoeu_merétery~

specificaiiy with reference t!.%,EX.P6″4 :.f$r§33’é””53€*3€’3A’é>€*’3Gli:’§i@d
on em March 1994 that, and his
brother Keshaveieh the property
bearing ft. Read,
Pattegarapehre Bangalore and

it is stated’ that, idee’eeeeei:”‘Kondenna/Kondaieh has

expired” 1.8″‘ “Therefore, according to the

:et:i.E:r;PS, there is a gap of six years between

V thei”daiie..efV’p€sriehese of the aforementioned property by

_:°,___¥ei:e Kohdarmelhiondeieh and his bremer Keehavaieh.

rE;i¢exptip.iacing reliance on the said Exhibit, petitiener has

i’ ierodueed any document to substantiate the said

%

/,_,,.____..i,..____..

IN THE HIGH CQLIRT C)? KARNATAECA AT B!5.NC:ALC}Ri?. Ci-iR»,P–.1’s§cse_l 36213693

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE c.R.i>.:io.136s:2m3

13
below for dismissing the suit fiied by petitioner is just, fair

and reascmabte.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances cf

the case, as stated above: I dc: not find any arbi*ararin£é:$?.;3:’,-4._:p_xiv

perversity or illegality as such commitred by this’-2 i-

betew in dismissing the suit fiiediby…4pet’f{ii$_rj’éVr'(i

Deiiitioner has made out any good

interference by this Court. VT!j:é’reforré,

petition filed by petitiorser’ is; iiabie in 5’1′-;’.._&(:¥iSf”I«1’i§~’~.V’a’$e”(VV:i’ as

Judge

3% THE }~EC”:H C’.’€)LiRT OF’ K~AR1\M.T-AK-A AT R+QN{5’nfi:«?.€3¥EF €T-.R-.9-.Nrr.i36$§:’%§3fB

Leave a Comment

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information