High Court Karnataka High Court

Pachamma vs Lakshmaiah on 19 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Pachamma vs Lakshmaiah on 19 January, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao S.N.Satyanarayana
_ I  . »_ . aAN__1:)

   'Sm LAKSHMAIAH

IN THE HIGH scum' op KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED ':':~11s THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2.()_(._)~v'.V9:'V":.-- f :-. n
PRESENT    
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K,s'IéEEI3;;;u§   x

AND T %
THE I-ION*BLE MR. JUSTICE S;’§i’Y;«3§¢AVf€A;ffi§i§f;A
M.F.A. N0.8~3.1 1 Q1«r*2§{i0%;% {M\n
BETWEEN ‘% ‘ A’

1 SMT.PACHA’.MM.A I :

mo LATE i§sEgéirs’A?PA. 4. ‘
AGED Asstjmf 2-‘3’3’3_’EAR–§3 _ ” ._j ‘
R/AT sHA_N’:fH»jE MAIDANA,
MUI.v.’3AGALj.TAI£5-,:}K,
KOLAR 1:}I&;.**1r’.z%;§,**i*.V -.

2 SR: may @ RAJEm)”RA’
s/0 LATE. E3.EEN.AP??Fxv_ ..’*
AGED ABG¥JT’238 YEARS
§2,{A*£* ‘£~HANTH.E VMAAIDANA

. MULBAGAL TALUK’,
. ‘-Kc::_,Ai:z.;)1s*rR1cT.

J. ‘ – APPELLANT

‘ (Byf’é§;€gzAT:’sUGUNA R Rmm, ADVOCATE)

mo MUNIYAPPA
g MAJOR m AGE
: R/-AT No.4o54, 131″ moss

Cg/,

2. The sister aad brother of the deceased had. ..

claim petitien seeking compensafion. The _. _

dismissed the grsetsition on the gtmlmd that u

have no: pmved their miationship the«A.deL2eeeed”‘ id

‘Tribunal has found that in reiated Veriminai efie

Kannappa was shown to be the of and
he has identified the §od5r;::4g’1t._t3:1€VA of.,’i:i1cident.v’HTi1eze is
no refexeace of the petifioner;i§r1:_i];e’_ Hence the

Txibunal comes to’ ‘eofieltasion tlxedifietitioners have

not proved their V’1«:.’*v§e=* deceased to claim H

C0mP€13S€3’u’f§<3ii=" ha-zduvgsredueed the ration card
before have now produced the

genealogical Tahsildar to prove their

" aggzci vpetiovdoners have produced the death

v'eeI~tioficate ~vof'~Ka_fihappa who has identified by the body in

the * case. The additional documents

produced. V"'ex?faeie cannot be accepted as conclusive

evidenee. The documents an: to be tesieci in trial. in that

order of the Tfibuna} is set aside and the matter is

to the Tribuzztal for flesh disposal in accordance

with law. The petitioners –~ appcflants are
produce any other adéitional evidence befom b
{grove their relationship with the de£:A¢3.s;:5g .. T. {

.A

claim. The appeal is disposed of