High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Imthiyaz Begum @ Noorjaha … vs Smt Gowramma W/O Late Anjanappa on 19 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Imthiyaz Begum @ Noorjaha … vs Smt Gowramma W/O Late Anjanappa on 19 January, 2009
Author: H N Das
 TEE HIGH CGURT G? KAR2\§;'\T;~\KA AT B:'U'3GALGRE
DATED TEES THE lfimfi.-3.."r:"' OF I.L\:\E{,?A§'{'§('§ 3809

BEFORE

Tm HQNBLE ax.-Km. JUSTICE  NAG.s%E£»-{OHAE'€ 1:333 V   ' '%

R.S.A; N0. 2034x2033"

BETWEIEN :

i SEN-IT IMTI"H';"AZ BEGU3\-*1 
1'~€{}{}R} AI-L'\ BEGUM . .. 
SINCE DECEASED BY  -A

19.. FARKLI:»::-1A.HAMV  '}3.A.AEARgTAE.'§§§  ._ 
D20 LT BASHEE_R'fi,P£&iED K}-}~;fxN_  ~ "

  

IB. AYAsKL?2~$3«*U;~agi":;;é"é";;s.  §€;A;I'v§I}()'§'§
;::.x L3.f£T?E,VB2*a§3I~{iZ?;§-§ ;~.}a1:s::3:3;:  
s.c;rE1:}"ABo"c§'3fJ,52_3 yigixzzs' ~ »  '

ac, HANEENAF;KL?NNInE§x.§  R}3ZE%EANA KHATQGN
13,60 L1xTE- BAs1~m¥ER""u--main ma-«N
;'%.£3E_D ,:'1B(jf;?T :5:   "
ALV-L; R;'O_235, smgxwas ';\fi,A'{A
 -  41?' L1R§)SS.,GAE\31}}{{PI..§E{A%i
" WI-::TE:11ETLr2 «_
' ,BéL?'€{i;%,LI{.3I%;Ii-360 Q56.  APPELLANYS

 ~ AA {By 811'; 1:: r:$';9£¢rIi§é;;é5.§:;5:s;fJm, ADV.)

 ; R535 :

»...;...........-5

 -1  SM'T.'GO1§?RA;'vfi'e{A

 -W50 LATE A2~EJANAP?:§
AGEB A5013; :0 "::'EARS

1' " 'we. HAGADUR VILLAGE

I3/I;;\rL%\D§-IALLE POST
B:'h\.='GALORE--56GG56

 aW



 JPASSED  RA.%€C;9§}'20fi0 ON THE FILE OF TIE DISTRICT AND
 " SESSIO?~E3._31}f){3E,.E='AST TRACK COURT-V, BANGALORE RURAL
 QISTRICT, ..B";23~IGzxLORE, msmssms 'I'HE, AP1?EAI. .2953
" '=«i,e;,3£1§2*~&'"1"*"if.I?.}'s»m\?(I;-'r.j"£'1~iZE JLEGEZE»-EN'? AND DEGREE DATED :»;3,02.290e
: =.P';%.S.:'EED' OSkNOrIfi;§997 ON 11% FILE OF 13% ADDL.CIVIL.
 IUBEEE {J_I{,DN,) BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BA§\.='GALC)RE.

r"--u°{r  'r run rw::zn::rx *r"r.3"3:: tax I rm;  
x,-r_2\.;L\..1 A..u..a 5.1 -;.:\2 _._ 

Ex.)

8 A EVIUZIB AHé'al\iAD KHAN

S:-'£3 LATE BASHJEER Afvfif} KHAN

AGEE ABOUT 34 YEARS

R50 NO. '.?3f1, NEAR FATHIMA URDU SCHOOL
CH;L%iUNaDIN;'.G;\R, R.T.NAG:\R
BANG3.LC}RE-32

3 KEARATHULLAKHA; T

350 LATE BASHEER Aamn KHAN

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ..  _
R50 ':30, 73:1, NEAR Fafrmm 1JR1>:;:3c§~:Q0L'_
CHfs.I~«ILTi\4'DIN,*&GAR§ R.T.NAGAR I «-- =
BAl\EGAL{}RE--32

4 B A ASR;A.FL1LAI<IiAN 
3:0 LATE BASHEER AIVED KHA_N  

AGED ABOUT31YEARSV.__   
R/"0 NO. 73:1, NEAR Faziamia  gzifi SCHCXSI,
mMU1~zDiN;xGAR, R.T.N::GAR--.»"    
BANGALKDRE-32A._   'V

5 BAH<ARAMALL;:goL
<::I»L&ux,£LY1~sEL*«f.4;<}ARv,':, 4R.T4.:\$,;\_G{AR.
BA3\I{};a.Lg;1R}3--;%2;.'f-.  =   ' -  RBSPDl\?£?EZ\I%TS
(By Sri. K R KR1s£1mzx;ru'RI:1Y»;  FOR
Mrs. LAWYERS  .eiI}V5,.i.  

   'E?-"ILED UNDER SECTION 190 OF CFC
AG:'~U'NST_ THE"-«._I{)DG:EE\zE§'NT AND DEGREE DATED 10.07.2092

iei"-ms RSA €OEv£{NG (LIN FQ   ms DAY. 11%

 
 

1..-.I»Vx...41.\..&..: 11.3.1.1; EJI...



 

JL "DG§i»~IE3VT

This secenci appeai is dizected against the Judgment and Degfacj

dated 10.97.2008 in RA. No. 96:'2OGG passed by the District ang 2 V.

Iudgie, Fast Track Court-V, at Bangalore Rural Dist1'ict," Eat:gaid£+§: % =  M

decreeing the suit 9f the piaintifi fer ejectment, 

2. Appellants and resgxzndent Nes, 2 ' €::_:_  fire  

respondent N0. 1 is the plaintifi" before tim "i*rial C<im*$.  

fer convemence, aim parties are;–rgfafezfefi-is ‘atatus fiéfcgvre xhé Trial
Cam.

3. Deceased dfiiéndant :”–W to be in

possession pa’ifi’§§é1;fennance of an agssesment
sisal: da£edvV31.{)€§.1V9’3*3VVfifi5::j: the of fiefendant filad a civii suit in

0.5. No. _1651959 “?.. agzzingi S tiaféndant fer a dezzree of gemxaaent

” i:1j1;ncti.§ 1:i’¢.re;s§f2eit;ing Iiéf’ interfering with the plaintiffs’ peacefill

.§t9Ss:=;s $iu:3T_an;i’afijm§itw;nt of the schedule pmgzerty, The éefenéam; files:

o.s.’2ss5;%~%662::9’79;{ gggms: the defendant — {mtiyaz Begutn f-3:2′ ejfictrnent

and far iiI3′..63V:”i’S_V often: an the geand that plaintiff is her tenant in the

V’ égzhedule iifldfif a Eease deed dated 03.113994. The Trial C-311:1

–.s:i§iz$L~g:-sé ijéth the suits and an the basis of gieadizzg framed the faliewing

“-«ifisfiés.

{K/fi___;Vf””*'”

Ex.D.1, canmxitted an errer in dismissing the suit of the piaintiff for

ejectment. The Lewer Apgeiiate CGI11/’f rightly rmticed the admissian

D.”/’.1 about her signature an the lease deed – Ex,D.1 am? on ”

thcz Lcswer Appeliate Ceurt reversed the judgment of %

Learned counsel for the: defendant centenés €11ai;iiiVis”E«x,_D«._1 «a» i::_=;3sf.é” ‘

dsed is a concacteci and created documents. 1 ‘r,§e§:’!i1§ie Ii) .é§;:_-t thing.”

cententien. D.W’.l in her depositian .s;’gnat{1re*. fin-

Iease deed. Under what circumstances herfi ‘signamée £0
E3111 M the lease deed is net statééi’ he;-,1.-‘– Theugh an
attempt is made in the ca;;rs3_.0f ej:idé:1c§¥ Qxffianappa tack
sigxamre ef £).W, the’ V’ §5f$ente:*ing inn} an
ageement cf s;a_1_é;_iv1: $3! piacing acceptable
evidence on rééfird; i;’:«::;.§'”l*.’:1.’-ac1’i;*21Lg1:.0 airman: sf Gral £2′-‘v’i£2§6fiCfi
can be accepted.’ E,§>i&éc1_* Court has rightly reversed the

ju{1.gmeniQf}:t’Izé Trial Cdisrtfiid defiefid the suit for ajectmeni.

– 8. ’11- is siéen {mm the réiiéfd that the defendant eontends that sh»: is

in .15£3§1SVfi$§iCifi”–${if_i€£i§1i8 praperty in part perfermance of an

‘ sait: §L{}8.I993 executed iay Anjanappa ~ the hushand

~€}f_fi}iaiI1tifi’. Adgfiiitteély tha defendant has am’. fihsd 31:19 isuii fer spec£.£i.c

enfarce the ageammt af sale dated 33.03.1993. On 0126

V” the defendant contends that Anjanairrga was net me GWIIGI’ aaf

prepezty and tlxerefare the suit far a decree cf sfiecific

CW’

parferznance was not filed. If that is Si) than {ha first defendant ought to

have dexnaztded rafuné ef the advance meant and vacated the scheduie

premises. (in the othar hand the fiat’ éiefcndant wanted ta ccmiinue _%:_1__

pessession of tha schedule premises without filing a Sui: fer

perferrnancca 01′ an agizemeni of saie. Fartlaer tfie first defensrletfi i2§e}igfi” ‘

denies that she is :10′: the tenant undrsr the plaintiflf …a«;i_1f_’:1its itthtiié .

hen’ evidenczz that she has affixctd her signaiuré’—_t-:3 iiic ..§€a3e._dee§1′ 1″

E-}:.D.I. This incensistent stand taken aihe f”fiTs;t ‘da*fend#i1’i..¢: a:!¢g1jiy.’3

inciicates that she wanted to continue in ijcsssesgion iii” ._ scfiaduh:
premises Withffilf gaying rents and *a{ifi1out’_fi£i:;gvL’S12§.;’f§i”d¢cree of sgnecific
perfozmance. The Laws; A§pe1£ate ‘_Cotiifi :i1a;j;”.\.;iVgi’-iii}: noticed this

opperamistic stand of d’i’sb§lie:V’ed…t::er versicn. In the

facts and eircizmsta:1ca$V €31″. ‘cVa$eV.in1p£1gmed judgment and decree of
£113 Lower Appeliate *Coui*t ié” fiirpxfiéitéti by evidence on record ané the

same is in ;§[¢cbz*£iance with 33%;’

1{{u.’_:su¥3s£3zif{a1 question cf iaw that arises far In}?

cafisidératiéfi $31135 étjpefsi. Accordingly, the appeal is herefiy {fiS¥’fliSS:3=i

Sd/-§___
Iudqe