IN THE HIGH COURT op KARNATAKA, BA§IGALbRE " DATED THIS THE calm DAY QF JUN_ E= 20039 " BEFORE THE H()N'BLE MR. :A S:4ij3(E}iPANNA REGUQE SECQND §PE§:_9_:H_ p 1 RAcHAMMA'w}_t3 :B'E9T:?rA:A?§« '$5 YRS, GANJAM :'flLLAGE, .. ' H sRzmmAz=~A'n~.:A MANIHA DIS'I"?',_- . SINCE QEAIB BY' HEfiRjV'LB}'«.. " a; SR1 RAv1E:U_Mfi,R " _ ; ~ s/<3 LATE am°m.A1e.--: Aaspziés. YEARS. _ .....
” SRIRANC’x}APAT_NA
‘ MANDM ‘QISTRECT
2 Ie4i;’§r1%Kti%:6Af’R._s;:”<j'.1.A.TE BETTAIAH
<'(:é;fr1~$i?i_K%VNARASIMHAN, ADV)
27 ms, Vaamsam VILLAGE,
. SRIRANGAFATNA
V MANDYA DISTRICT
APPELLANTS
11* THE ASSISTANT mawroa
OF' FISHERIES (II GRADE}
PANDAVAPURA
MANDYA DIS'I'RIC'I'
UV
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA A'
BY ITS cam' SECRETARY A. '
VIDHANA soumm, BANGALQREA
Sm' VENKATAMMA vs?/0 xAR.nKA"?PA–.
smcs DECEASED 13? man RS .__ _
VYRAMUDAIAH S/0 1<Aiz;*(APr-éi
so YRS, R/O c._AmAM…. % *
SRIRANGAPATNA, M£;NpyA;.:b1.$T5.}' 'V V' " V
KUCHELA' Sv,t4Q51§§AVRIYAj_PPA.,_ _ H
45 V123,'?/Q GANJAM. '
SR}l2A_}§G£s1?A1'I#&.§,VVlyi.fiNDYA'zlblsflf
DEAD By " ~
R–5(b1TQ 0:;
LAXMAM NlA W’/<5 N§LRA;{ANAPPA
.m;.E:s5 ms, 11,15'? ssmzvewa BLOCK
"A{G.iLT3OLONY, N.R;'HIoHALLA,
~ . 1,M';$omr'.:' 'V
. "-TPU*r19A'ia£iSA';é.T'Vv:]o LATE CHIKKAHYDA
A Ai"}E:50' 2&3; R/AT SANTHE KASALEGERE
':«;o*:fg*1–:.«.m'2*r:–:z HOBLI, MANDYA 'I'AL3JK
KALHQNAMMA D/O KARHAPPA
" *A_GE:45 YRS, R/O GANJAM,
x _SRIRANGAPA'I'NA, MANDYA DIST
VYRAMUDAIAH 3/0 KARIYAPPA
T AGED so ms, R/O GANJAM,
SR1 RAN GAPATNA, MANDYA DiS'l'
KUCHELA S/O KARPIAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
L
6
e)
YASHODAMMA W10 KUCHELA
AGE:55 YRS, R/AT GAN-JAM : ‘
SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DIST
VYRAMUDI s/0 KUCHELA
Aerszss ms, R/AT GANJAM, %
SRIRANAGA?A’}’NA, MANDYA msfr
SUJATHA D/O KUCHELA
AGE:33 YRS,R/AT Ga’:~i…:é’AM’«_% 1′ ‘
SRIRANGAPATNA,
MANDYA DIST, ‘
BHAGYA D,’-“<5 C V
AGE:3O YRs,–V..R;»-.W;_.GAnuAM"f «-
SRIRANGAPATHA, §&X'ND'?A'–DIS'F""""'–
Mamtjm D/0 " _'
AGE:'28 was-, R/AT
SRIRANGARfi.1'NA, %aA:+:p'm _.a:s'r
Ragas/0 KUCI-mg
~ _ AGE:i26;_Y_RS., R/AT w.–:-«JAM
' 3-R;RANGA?A*m_~zA, MANDYA 13131'
I L«31§t;s:{A..$/?)J'I§I3'cHELA
AGEQ4 Yf2'S,—- Rj;'AT GANJAM,
sI<é..1§AN{*..A.m:1NA, MANDYA DIST
RAVI S,lVO'1-KUCHELA
* AC3E:22 "YRS, R/AT GANJAM
§3RII~?ANGAPA'I'NA, MANDYA ms?
RESPONDEWTS
%7aa.~:x saivtrras do§H«1.RM1’1:G~
THE JUDGEMENT AND DEcREE,mf_p 13;9.,_96 PAssE’a«.V;N 0:3
1~ao.332/92 on THE FILE OF THE MLWSIFF, sR:R.«1§IczAPATiiA.’
THIS RSA comma on FOR %A%I$}\a:ss:oN *rHIs%.pA§’, THE
coum nmxvszrznn THE F()’L’LOWl_NG;_ V
711° aPP*i-?E.m?ij%A[ piaintitr in
fine said suit is said
to be the who had represented
the second at V t.:ime. Though this appeal
was during the pendcncy of
apt has died and the: we
appEi1§;ni_ the Inga] heir is pzrosecuting this
A ‘ L
parlJ’x:s are refermd to in the same rank as
h to them before the Court fin’ the purpose of
1 * .. ‘asmvcnicnce and ciaiity.
$
‘9’
3. The pla1’nt1’fi’s were before fl1c:€3c!11ft
for a declaration that the first :
Bettiah, who «rm on 20.07.l992′;__v:v”fl}c
contended that the of
such wedlock. The cause _was that the
said late Bettiah was iihév’ Q31″ Fisheries,
Pandavapura benefits ware
available far :1 mgmd, the plaintiifs being
aggieved tba€’*t,};e samvv being pa1d’ to the them were
_}:;efo1e Cnuxt fize defendant N033 is the mother
to 5 are the brothers of late Betua’ la.
The de£¢;gaa:it:az_d§§<§p:3ned the claim' put forth by the plaintifis.
that the fixst plaintiffwas the wife of late
bthcr claims put forth with regard to any
bCtW€CIi the first plaintiff and Bettiah were also
T-1
V'%%LJA%"%i'ssues ed;'t:aé first piaintifi' cxam3:n' ed herself as mu;
"one: witness namely Krishna as PW–2 and
"E-x'«s.P1 tc P9(a). The fzmrth defendant examined
"1:i'nm1fas nw-1 and marked Exs.I)I to D3.
H.t€lIidC1'6d by the pazties held the issue N0s.1 and 2 in the
4. In the backgmzmd of the cdin§6nfio§i.§; ‘V
the panics. the Trial’ Court ., i3si;ie$” iv’4’5iV”V ‘its
consicziexatiozx, which reading hcl”wt’:’I’.’l’.’I.1’v2i_:t”.’I”.V »”” . ._
1. Do sh; pkamfi;:*§ theybemg
the_
51-3 senrioc
2. tzafifled for the
declare to-13! for?
% ~ ‘/ 3’. ‘ ‘Fa:-“~j:.v1ia;.omef’§; decree?
f$;” I;z[A’d;ist:hargc the burden cast by the sand’
5. The Court below after oonsidcling the evidence
1:
23.VT1 fiairé heard Sn’ K.V.NarasiJ:nhan, learned oeunscl
the appcflant, Sri G.S.Bhat, Icalrmd counsel
for the contesting mspondcnts and perused the
papers. k
negative and consequently the suit E16 ‘V
dismissed. The plailltifiis mg
and decree dated 13.09.1996 £i11cieI*”;Secfion
96 of the Code of Civil Civil Judge
(Sr.D11.) as JMFC, 4sfi;:ang;;§e;ta;§ R§AV,_N6.? 1 /96.
7. raappreciafing the
evidenceiiias the’ findings” rendemd by the
‘I’ria} Court thtfif’ has been aflinned.
The tficiaféié Igneing aggxicved by the said
Qf th£’£W}:OW€1′ Courts are before this Court.
in this sfmhd
Q
4′:
