Loading...

Smt Gangamma vs Sri Naganna on 26 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangamma vs Sri Naganna on 26 November, 2008
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT :1)? KARNATAKA AT 3MsGAL0:2..§«.  

Damd: 'I'hi$ the 426*?" day of November '.  ' ' 

BEFORE

THE H()i\£'BLE2 MRJUSTECIE    ' _ 

REGULAR SECOND Awgaz Ne,_§230i{52€ui{}§ "v'.  u

BE'I'WEE';N :

sm' GAN(3'rAM;MA'=--_  _

W/O LATE RAJANNA' . . 
AGED ABOUT 66 'YEARS '   ' '
R/AT BA.NAS;%{ANiKAR§_,} " 
BEHiNIf§_.RA;1E'L§&'A&'AS'ZfA'I'I()g!\E'=. ' 

   
..   ' 4.   APPELLAN1'

(By Sui; s1D§ji5TS§1§52;a§§A.:f>i2'g;sA§> S KABBUR, ADV. )
AND: A . A V 1

_ SR: NAGANH5.

..  3; 1;': NANJF:.P§fA _

 'A<'3':EI3' ABGUTS1 YEARS
 R,l}5{I-DABASFET,
V _ " s_GMp1)RA_j.H0s3L1

._ * .._V%~NE:Lk;e.(1;;z~z'GAI,A TALUK,
'  BANGA_.i;0RE RRURAL DISTRICT' 562 1:1.
  "V "  RESPONDENT

” ” ” M/S.JAYARAJ &–, ASS(f}CIA’I’ES FOR’ {‘:/R 3

_ §~?SA F’iLE:D ms 109 cm CFC AGAi§\ES’E’ THE
_;,jI3§GEMEN*:’*< AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2898 PASSED
3;»: RA.NO.138/Z300'? are THE F§LE3 01»? THE PR1,-.<:mL

JU£'}GE'; (SR,DN,} BA,N'C'rAL{)RE RURAL DIS'I'RIC3',
BANGALORE}, ALLOWING THE AP§'E3AL AND SETTINC}

2
ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE DA’F{*3D
2’9.11,2(){)? PASSED IN €)S.1\§0.281f 1996 ON THE FEE;

09′ THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.[)N.) AND

N ELAMAN GALA.

‘THIS APPEAL <:M1NG ON__,E’.O,_R <;§§1"'m~*:;*%§e',<;:. *';*»I»1'_;fs;
mar, *1*m«: COE3R'1' DEELEVERED TH 1:~(.f:.;,1;ci:w}jr~éi4:'g " _ j

J U D G

when the matiger
petitimn under Orderv2"'L~;.¢V:"i?1}k:_' «"t"'f .:?:»C–.x§?as fiifid and
it is szlgled by counsel
r€:pr<3s;6::'11';i.¥1:5g: ». "

‘Q II: §:§:?%§;;;r;§};ffi§$e petition it is statafi

that fthe ‘Lpartitsag ” a.g”eed to get. their Ixames

” inn tiuéfl to the extent cf 34 gtmtas,

634:}: ._;9t:g7ar_cijs itami of suit pmperty is cancemed

armf.wthe:.: aiso stated that iflifi-i€3i1.iZ is net avaiiabie

for partéfion. in terms caf ma crompmnixise. ageed £0

V.”w’.”t3at.s%€:en E336 paliies, the prayer made is to dispose of

appeal. “$3/,

‘ V

3. Both the parties am presgfint and Si} also

the camisei and they admit the terms A.

compromise petition that is fflfid. Even tfaa = M

Eiad dacrfied the: suit of the plaiiitiff in tr;-:S;3;(:éz1f.:

$11311: in the guit property and ‘£h€:’.af§1f}i{:1}a.té:V_::Q:1I’E ”

aiiawed the appeal filed by

4. In View {bf ‘~3;1_1t-3 ezifiéréti imie
between the parties, tha fjiésposed of in

terms of I;13x;g§,e. :2The: – *€:ofn«;:jfi’>11ai1.37é petition shall

farm paI’tT’é.:1ri.p9_i*§:;e1i iiiis efdéiz

3d/«Li
Iudgé

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information