IN THE HEGH comm OF KARNATAKA AT aANG§L0siE'i%:%" &
DATES THIS THE 29*" DAY Ai'»%_MAiZW/,O"§'EDfi§&PPAIi?&§
AND DIG,-§'.'£-ATITE'.';ENKfir|3;ABQVI!'.' '
Assn ASQQT'-S§_ Vr<;£AT A
NAxKALAGA::;pA,MA3ARA '
G THU'?4§6}?\LAF'§;%L.LI*--'a{iLLA€§Em--
Ra¥As,PAa_~A5;mu%.._ %
SRI~NiVASA_PURA 'Fs§si;a£,
vnl an 'r~.1c'rnn'-31". '
l'\\-II.J"'\;£._\ w1...a I l\L\:'§ . S '-
. . . APPELLANT
% - .. (8y {M §iAR)§§YAvNA .3HAT Pea SUBBA RAG & co. ma
APE-1.*EL£.A jr)
" A'
1 "'«.._NARA'{fl:*NAMMA
w/ox. BGDAGUNDLA CHOWDAPPA
' n J AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
~ V «..R;'AT POGLAGUNDLAPALLI VILLAGE
' ..ROYAL.PAD HGBLI
SRINIVASAPURA "mwx
KCLAR DISTRICT.
RESPONDENT
(By Sri ‘. D N CHOWBAPPAAQV. )
(ii) Whether the piamtiff properiy
vaiued this suit and paid property
court fee?
(iii) whether the piaintiff is entitaee fer
aiternative reiief of possession?
3. In order to prove their respéectlyee§:bfite§%tEt>–h’s*,. _v e
behaif of the plaintiff, two w|tn’ere_ses w_ere eenaeea
PWs.1 and 2. The piaéntiff e;:ee@cn%% E)<V;§=:l. _V'fIoV': Péf, On
behalf of the defendant, exavvffxifived as
DW1 and DW2 and it; 3!! %'¥:ea."z;:{:¢;§.'.ps Ex.D1 to
D11. The tria! ??W"*§:'xéiiwfz'eto??sé}1éé5e%$?§§':7tne..Tent:re evidence
and the affirmative and
additional arifiemam and additional
issue-3 as ewes net .:a:r'§A;¢§='e.bfcnicetisideratian. Ultirnateiy the
suit of tnee.p;aie£i=r-refleame ii: the decreed by its Judgment ene
:,(:'&é'{:'reeflé.£¥ E-;§';.12'e«,30£J3'V.'"'}Xg'éinst which the present appeilant
filer: eejrere the Fest Tract ceurt, war in
' "'vReguier44:V%Appee!E,No.23/2004. '(he Iewer appeilate Ceurt
hea"r*§:f1;A§ the arguments advanced by the parties,
the fofiowing paints for its consideration:
{3/'
Thereafter the vendor of the respondent has said
pmperty t0 the respondent in the year 196?. As a
of fact KPTCL Act has come into ferca i:.v'1 ii":'e'2' «yéar
Even after 31 years, the appeilarat am not fits »S:z1A.app'ii¢_f-§tier;. "
for resumptien of land under the sai"d'«ehaVc.i¥né?§iv§"
Since the assailant has no casegon r:éérfiV:s,'VVV"§t._§s ?';§f.g;§"3'é¥':
for the aspenant ta centenfi J3': Qvsm the
circumstances, this 'flzasens to
interfere with the courts beiow.
whether the i;§*§:§n~ <:§§Vr;:tvi;'r:t"a<éI't2vsVV–:i§oss.ess§on cf the
property or na 1:,_ Is'%a%§V§e§,t§L§Vn» am: not a question of
law.
3 9. A the ei;fcun?§sta’rttés, the appeai is dismissed.
Séfw
Iuéigé