High Court Karnataka High Court

Siddaramakka vs Kuruvatheppa on 23 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Siddaramakka vs Kuruvatheppa on 23 November, 2009
Author: H.G.Ramesh
R.S.A.NO. l4€>3[2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 200TfefROVA

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE>AfI..G'.RfiM_ESH_   

R.S.A. NO. 1463

BETWEEN:

SIDDARAMAKKA
W/O ERAPPA .

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS _ g _
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURIST * .
R/O AGASANAKATTE.\HLLAGE«v._”wA ‘ A ‘

TALUK 3: DISTRICT DAVANAEO,SRE’,5*r–7OOa._ V’ ‘

AND:

1;)’

Lu

[BY SR1 ‘

SR1 KURU’v’ATH£3P-PA _ .

S / O HANCHINANIANE }1AN'[J}¥’iAPPA

AGED ABOUT 77=YEA’RS.”~–
AGRICUI,’I’URI’€~T Q ~’

R/Q’ AOASARA KA’ITE, ‘

‘1fAL;uK 5: DISTR1’CT_.DA’VANAGERF3 577 006

» SR1 AGASANAK_A*1T1«: VIRUPAKSHAPPA
“:3O/OA.DAVANA(_;1:.RE ANOAD1 VEERAPPA
._AO_ED ‘AE3OD-T; 67 YEARS.

A O RIC1_JL’l”U_RIS’l”

R’/O C»’HIKF;A BUDIHAL,

TALUK Sr DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577 006

A’ SR1.’ AGASANAKATTE RUDRAPPA

” ‘S,/O’ DAVANAGERE ANGADE VEERAPPA

“AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OWNER OF’ KHANAVALI.

NARASARAJA ROAD. DAVANGERE 577 006

R.S.A.No.l463[2007

sé. SR1 AGASANAKATFE BASAPPA
8/ O DAVANAGERE ANGADI VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

AGRICULTURIST.

R/O DODDABATHI, TALUK <3:

DISTRICT DAVANGERE 577006 …RESI-‘~'(:):1’VI1)vrE1j\:T’l’§t ”

THIS RSA FILED U /S I00 OF CPC ADAINSI’ THE JIJDGIK/:E’NI’ V

& DECREE DATED 19.2.2007 PASSED IN R.A.No.2(I’r–/2005 ON

THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR;DN.}.’DAVAI\IGE’HE§I1:_1
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT

AND DEGREE DATED 5.4.2005 PASSED IN”o.S.I\Io.2’39;/I2IQo4 ON

THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE.,_[J’R_. DN.), .DAV.ANoE–RE’.”‘

THIS R.S.A. COMING __ON EoR_.AIjM_ISSIoN THISHDAAY. THE
COURT DELIVERED THE EOLDQIAHIIG: g

Heard. De’feiid)ant:r.noa.4′.”A:héI’Sidpreferred this Second

appeal. Peruéed two Courts below.

On a proper appIv*eEi;Ition«.oi’-the evidence on record, both

the Courts ‘plaintiff has purchased the

land measuring 2..;AIoreSV’15 guntas under the registered

Zlsafilve deed _d.:IteVd’«-28.11.1960 (Ex. P2) in Survey No.18/5

and . Survey No. 18/ 1 and mentioning of

vS.urveyR”No;’—-1u8’/’ in the Sale deed was a mistake. T his

a finding of fact, no Substantial question of

1-aiv Adazrisdes for determination in this Second appeal. No

.»”””«MMm

£«~

%”x.iv}//
/{X

R.S.A.N0.1463g2007

ground to admit the appea}. The appeal is accordingiy

dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.     pp
 WIUDGEg\e_j~d

VGR/Ata