Ravi S/O Vithal Kabbur vs Hanamawwa W/O Hanamantgouda … on 26 September, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA

CIRCU IT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 26th DAY 01:' sEPrEMBE_1§,~--2Qm*:;... .. .  
Tq: Mudhoi, 'Dis?!-':_ Ba{'ga11{dt..  .
Pin--S3'73].3      '  Common

appellant

(By 311. _Man§ugamVV§;1e1ea;'2iav)

        

 Wjfi"{imr9;mantgcuda Kajjidoni
. @ Araiienji'
65,._y1'."3,  (1 / 0 Venkatagoucla
F'.ati1_

  " * ..gmmanag7 ouda

"  MS/0 Hanamantgouda Kajjidoni
@ Arakeri.
43 yrs.

 3 Govindaraj

S] 0 Hanamantgouda Kajjidoni

 



@ Arakeri, 39 yrs.

Ravi

S] o Hanamantgouda
Kajjidcmi @ Arakeri
2'?' yrs.

- all appellz"-mts~1 to 4 are

r/0 Lokapur Village, '12}: Mucih
Dist: Bagalkot --- 587 3 13- '

Sunanda

W/' o Vishwaflath Ficxgtagocii' " 
27 yrs, r/o Hosakotirkijlage  1 '

Tq: Ramdurg ..
Belgaum Dist: -- 590-902. V

Sunita H 

  

31 yrs, 11"";'T.L<',j-_..Kg:1'3?;1V:"  
Dist: u Bijapinj 4 -:38???  ' « '"

Lajita   

.. 0 Sid1aj11..I§;abl)t1r

    A    
"  Kabbur

Stlfésh

 ..  Sf%;'Sidram kabbur
V' _  yrs.

Parvairi
W] 0 Pundalik Alagawadi

24 yrs.

Common
Respondents

– zespondents 7 to 10 are 1″/0 Lokapur
Tq: Mudhol, Dist: Bagalket – 583313

(By Srti. S S Yadrami, Adv for R-1, 2, 4 to 6.)
Sri Gmsh S Hixemath, Adv for R-7,9 82; 10)

The ease; N0s.2992/2007,-J2992/200?,”FQ9§3{:210C’7,bi’

2994/2007,2995/2007 ae 2996/2097 aeejjmeez’ .eedee”vvseee:ou
100 CPC against the judgment and’.der:ree da’ied–._18-11″-2066

passed in R.A.Nos.19/2002,;2312002,’ 20120-52, 24)j20e2,’*.

2212002 55 21/2002 :espeeueeiy….en the me cf t;:e.e”-Add1.e:vi1e
Judge (S2233), Jaxnkhandi sitiing» at Mudholi allowing the
appeal and settiug aside the judgment’ decree defied 2242-
2001 passed in 0.330.571 1996;,’ ‘e’-:39/1997,” 51/1997,
345/1996, 63,1199′? 55 e5_;’199_7 -.:«;eepee[eye:y on the file of the
Prl.CiVi1Judge (Jr.Dn), Mudhole

These appe’s1s’~co1c3fi1mg fhis day, the Court:
delivered the _

I

Sri éleaxned counsel files vakalath for

V zesp9:§1d’ee,ts-7, “9. He has aiso filed GPA executed by

19 in favour of Sri Shankrappa. The said

are placed on record. The Iearned counsel

_ a1se'”fles.__”a-eiemo reporting the death of respondent-8, who

“‘«..V:st:31:ed t.(.)’v1?1§-‘ave been died about 2 year back.

” It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant

the appeal against Respondent No.8 be dismissed,

eacesrdingly appeal against respondent no.8 is dismissed.

,.–‘

3. The learned counsel for the appe}Ian§.¢..aimV§;:’ ‘ie®3ed

counsel for zvespondents-I to 6 85 7, 9 6r, 11€1_ve ‘

compromise pefition. The appeHan:t;”ie’spo;1§jeI;tQ3’ b 7

holder of R–i,2,4 to 5 8:. GPA hok3ler of £2-T7Af&.

Court, all of them anzlmiis the S

4. Aeoordingiy, these appe:;iéff~a;ieeA§iis%)eseéa. of terms of
the eompmmise petitio}3;”fEil.ed;” to ciraw the
decree in terms me ” ”

éeeeeeed No.8 is hereby
ciismisf’:”f’.:.i<–w.: < e
No ordeifias ._ _'

' % Iudgig

e ,_Sp/