1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANQTALTQRE
DATED THIS THE 1:" DAY OF JANUAESEM2%QiA0jE~
BEF()RE_
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ;\%;xITA1T\:13BYjR%,:\E:é,EEDi§*{i[{iTL
REGULAR SECOND AEEEAL %N£).2=4 1
BETWEEN: V
S.R.Vasude.va Raddy,
S/0. Eate Ra:1Tai_ah-Reddyg;
Aged aijcaut yef§.-aTs._ .4 _
R/at Sa11k~;11z1’v’i11′:1 V11fi’i’.«..ge,., ‘ ‘
JiganiHQD1\i;’ _ A
/\neka1Ta1uk., – _
Banga1o;–¢ Dm-as-;tf.” ‘ T …APPE.LLANT
?%\/Ik:N’a11’a1y*L11Ta1 Raddy, Adv.)
S/Q, lat€:RaIm1iah Raddy.
dead by LRS,
‘”Smt. Geetha Raddy.
D/0. late Bhaskar Raddy,
R/at 111 Easfi, 7″‘ Strest,
No.77, New York.
ls.)
N\’10U009–57S6. ..i2Es§xjat)a;%r
(By Shri. S.Shekar Shetty, Adv.)
This Regular Second Appeal t’iledaltintler.ilSectiet1v.tp:_lt)£lhf C
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 agair1stt_t_he_judgeinent.anddetciee
dated (}3.l().2()08 passed in R’.’A’.*N_().l()f20l}3V ()ni:ltl’1ev.l_fllegnf lthes.
district and sessions judge and p1’e’s»iVd’ing_4 officerg’-F_ast Track Court?
V, Bangalore Rural district, dis1ni.ssi’1i.g the appealar1d7c0nfirm.ing
against the judgment an4d”~..detii*ee_ Vdat_e.d”~-22.()l .20()”3 passed in
O.S.N0. l()4/1990 on the ‘ tile loffitilie ilp:_re.lit’n_iV11ttry Civil Judge
(Se nior Division) Bangalore.Rur21’l._D.istt”ict,iEaingalore.
This Regt1la:’;t’iSect)ntl A.ppea.l eoth.ii’1’g'()n for orders this day,
the Court deliveied theft)ll~<5.tv'i'i*1g;':': '
ljigpGMENT
He'atf_d' the lCt;)_uit$'elVf0..tl'tl1e' appellant.
ii 2;_._ The pi*iti*~.—-:=–.«-5y' contention ml' the appellant is that the
piain'telft".ha3':"h_eeh granted a judgment and decree in respect of
items 0_f~ceifjt.–am property, which had not fallen to the plaintiff's
Share." lnlthis regard, Exhibits P–l and P-2 would have clinched
the issue, which both the Courts below have failed to take note of.
3. The counsel for the appellant was called upon to
establish that such it contention was taken before the trial L'()Lil’t.
é
‘»..cJ
Accordingly, the written statement is produced. It ..~i:5–..i:m1:_ti-dj’ {that
there is no pleading advanced by the ztppellant. rega’r”d.,
Hence, it is for the first time that thisimnt-entfE()ttea,is -sidughtm he to
be raised. Therefore. there are 110’s–u.bstz1n’t.iat! que;§tit’i:jsvQfwlaw ith:-it»
would arise for cimsideratipii.
4. Thoughithere the share, which
was not always open for the
the property by way of a
pri vate i i it A
_; ‘However’; the’ appeal stands rejected.
Sd/-_§_
Iuclgé