“gr:3>.§;”sri_«1§V’*Ji__s§i1IN9E, ADV.)
” ” *1», 3HADRAG£R1Gowi3A Sm LATE BOLEGOWQA
2 CHOODEGQWEA SIG LATE BOLEGCJWDA
i
W THE H§GH COGWI’ OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated: This thfi 19″‘ day ofJ1_u1e 2008
EEZFORE T f .
THE HOWBLE MR.JUS'”§’ICE v.JAGANNAT§5IAr€ .
REGULAR $300940 APPEA.LmN.o.793.)7:§Qc;§»
BETWEEN :
1 s RAJENDRA S/O LATE-v.,§€”~SHAM;%.NN£s5
60 YEARS, 0cc;AG«R1cuFLTUR1sT ‘_
we N0. 3.10/4, KASHI VVISHEVANATH LAYOUT
K.R.PUR’AM, 5 ” V.
BANGALORE ~– 36.” ‘-
:2 S SLIRKS-_[ L1».-igm”-.’a:j_!g VSHA-MANN_P1
58 YEAE<:S,; 06:2; .S'E RV1'€-E '
,R;%0%N@_.10-;%V%%.13, -»1%'r'3'I.'_' C :'»a.A1N;
WVEKAMANQANAGAR, BSK 3&1) s;'rAGE
'vBAra(3ALG»§'<?:?._ 85 –. ' '
3 13 SLRA.NG?;R1%«JUVS;.O LATE R SHAMANNA
_ 'V42 YE';ARSw,_QCC_: S'i§}RV7£CE
V, we DUE=H§ASANDRA VILLAGE
QUVFALA LUNASE POST
. 3 }SzIARAL.AVAD¥ HOBLI
_ 'i«<:ANA;£:APuRA TALUK 55:2 1 17.
APPELLANTS
MAJOR.
MAJOR.
3
respect of S_V.No.50. Aggrieved by the abmrt:
modification of the judgnent of the trial c:c>111f1V§,i Tf’i3.g.3
plaintiffs have preferrffi this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned ”
parties. The suit was filed tfgé; .’
redemptio:1 of moritgage ;;jer§ai:1i ng”‘tnV
Sjs;.No.5() meastzzizlg 3 .Vgut1ta3:T_s§tué:t:ed at
Paduvanage:e %;iI§agt:é:% and a.1$0 in
respect of 4 acres
228 _s”¢.%#V3j§§é»v’;3lace. It is the case
at’ ~~{:he defendants were in
possssgiciih’ : properties and therafore the
. V’%’1::.;41<:l the prasem suit following the
to hand ever the suit properties {ca
:3. ;The defendants an their part contended that
" *~ th-3:- ;:)r0peI*ty bearing Sy.N0.51 was ganted in favour
" tha defendants on 23.1.1981 and following the
death of their fafi, defendants have been in
in that extent the appeal was ailowed and
0f tha trial Ceurt was modified.
6. Aggieved by the said
the lower appeilate
preferred by the plaintiffs.
7′. Having regazfi t_g’ made by
both sides a1;z:c;:1 ” ‘§nate1*ia1 011
record, 1 as the mwgr
appfilkigtff’ the relief ta the
piaintwgiffsu’ as is conctirned, the viaw
taken »§e;,Vér-:3Vr3§c1 judge of the lower appellate
cofift paIél§«’Lh€ judgment appfiars to be thfi
:<} (i.rr<:cti in iaw. it has been haid by {ha lmver
that $0 far as the item in Sy.No.5 I is
the occupancy rights had been granted in
A "ii of the defendants father and th€:ref<:2re the
i:':0urt has no jurisdiction to go into the questien ef
gent af {)C(31lp83"1(3§f rights in View of the bar u/S 48-A
of the Land Refozms Act and the only course left to
,V
' :
§1’1€::3.t’of
6
the piahitifis is t0 file writ petition Llfldfii’ Article 226 if
they want; to questima the gant of occupaxzcy
‘I’h<-"zrefore, in the light of the said observatiéiifig.' _
lower appeijiate court decijned ftzg g"aI1t the '4
pkaimiffs in respeczt 0f Sy.No.51.:'-._ . 3 A
8. i do not find {he
lewer appellate and
S€C{}If1€i1}’ V'”:if”t1;§..:V%;#ppel£aI1is also
sub11:1it.s ffied a writ petitiozl
befor;% gain of occupancy
rights in favouz’ of the
defgindaxlfi aiici the said writ petition is still
j péndifgg i{1″‘!gf.P.N<W13749/O5.
9', of the aforesaid submission made by
_ .. R':
the Iégfiled counsel for the appsflaxlts, .1 finci thaththe
a.4pi;§§:I1ants have questioned the grant: sf occupancy
yvfights of the defendants father in the aforesaid
mantioned writ petitiozl, which is stiil pending, I do
mm; fmé may ground made cm; for this court :0
})~/
‘ 4’