L
IN THE Hi’GH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT i3AN(}AL{)RE;_
DATED THIS THE 13’Ffi my 0:2 FEBRUARY
WRIT PETITION NQ.11581 QR 2%o@6(Gn§ §§PQ%%é%éL%%Jff T
BEFORE
THE HODYBLE MR’. JUS’FiCE§»»N.gANr3?$;C§}§” ;’
BETWEEN:
{By Sri’ ac: ‘S4HE’~iAi{A :aa§_L}I,;9g{}U}s;*i}TI4i£%§\5£%E«ik’5.’i;i,E'”iiII;,LAGE=
m;+::«:.>”:.;:,1 ‘
MAvi}D’Ij}%2’_TALUP§.*, _ .
MANMA 1::’i;Hi*’£*g:e:’T
.’ PE;T’ET’IONER
‘ Iii:’¥:e3AMMA’@_V_ifEiU’L§LsAMMA
..’vA::;;;:.,,6e¥EARs ———-
‘ma: BOI~3z§IAH
R/a:’:.’4C~;gK,é;:Ie;}:: Hfi)BLi
Mas}:-we “§*,A,§..=UK
§\Ji
MAN {;Y;§_. :)§:S’?RIC”i’
SHA§K&§A
AGE 25Y§_:ARs
E”;/C¥*”LA’i’E BGRAEAH
V “me C A KBZRE HQBLI
‘ MADDUR TALUK
MAN DYA BISTRICT
BCJRIKEAH
MAJOR
Sf O LATE’ BOARAIAH
P2/Q C A HERE HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT REZSPONSENTS
{By Sri. R F’ SOMASHEKARAIAH FQR R143}
4
5. As Could be seen from issues framed in the
suit plaintiff has to prove that her mother Fiivavyrswés
the iegaily wetided wife of deceased
pisintiff’ is the daughter of ciecheased i-?;’:$1’s’:=:aVii”;. V'”=”i”he
piaintiff is else reqilimj to prove itiifimi’ si:.i_t*sehe»:i’H]éT1.’.i
_/
properties are the aneestrafyiiak jeifiii fsmiiv. p*x5§Ip-e§t=i:es
of plaintiff and ”
6. the case said
the the msfriage of
dsllghfer 3235 defendant has no
reievance facts in issue. The trial
eni1ijt§j’e<msidei*¥n_gs these aspects ha/Q ismissed the
. 6. , _ V ' . . . . . .. 'V
sppli:emf.i<§n.–_fedn not find any gmimds to interfere with
§"i':4.'~':V"'i1'1?;;)vvz"3g'V"'Af_"':fl_<"£' 'Seder.
Aeesifiingiy, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge
em/–