High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Narayanamma vs Smt Jayamma on 2 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt Narayanamma vs Smt Jayamma on 2 December, 2010
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2"?) DAY OF DECEMBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HOINFBLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVA1*SA1p}g   ''

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL N0.1218/2809. (PAI_?m8A;V'4PECiS$I'€)'_'_:V«V 

BETVVEEN:

1. Smt.Narayanamma,
Aged about 53 years.
W / 0.Ramaiah, V «_ 5  E
R/o.Bo0pasar1dra village &"pusi_:,   1
Bangalore.   'A

2. Smt.Sushee1a;%nn1a';. V" '" A

Aged about 52 j,.rear:~1,_.'
W/o.Venkatesh,7§. '*1': " , '-
R/0.Vidy:asaga1'Vi}.iag_e';p  
Arabic C011-ege 'posh ~ '"- '

K. R.Puram Homi,

Bangalore. A

 ~.$fi,mt.Sf1*i'ant_han1ma,'  .  ..... <4 .
V"  Agged abo1,if39 years.
VW ,' Qj C--har1._ri'egeWda_,
R/0.1tiara1ua?.«V1i}.age~~& post,
Hosakete '1' afiijk, 

E" Bangalore .R11_1fa1A Dist.

' '  FSIE: .  Latlgiaé A1'

' Aged' about 32 years,

  We/0-SF1Afashikumar.

a.AfijanapL1ra village & post.



Uttarahalli Hobli.
Bangalore South taluk.

[By S1'i.S.Shara1h KLIHI-':'iI' 81

Sz"i.S.Venugopala. Advs.) (ABSENT)

AND:

E.

Smtdayamma.
W/o.late Muniramaiah.
Aged about 64» years.

Sri.Ar1and.
S/o.late Muniramaiah.
Aged about 52 years.

R-1 S: 2 are r/a. ._ .
Vidyasagar village,   '
Arabic College Post. _  E
K.R.puram Hobli, 

Bangalore. -'  "

Smt.Vijayaiakshrni,V  _ 
W/o.S1'i.H.Cl1andrah_as'a;' _ 3 "
Aged about 60*-years, -_ _
R/a.No;22/L30. Nagawara;

4- ' -Arabic lfioilégfill Post; «  ooooo 1' l

 ._ Near P"hilo'men"a. Hospital.

'E3angaEoree_56(} 

S1'i.JA.
S/o.1ai_e Bgjayaramaiah.
'Aged about,64 years.

  ' ~ . a.No.9t3.,__ l5.I\lagasandra,
' Yarjftealur Post.

  B'a,Angal_ore--56O 037.

. . .APPEILI4AN,'l'S

Q

...RESPONDENTS



This R.F.A is filed under Section 96 r/w.O1'der 41 R1 of CPC
against the Judgment 8: Decree dt.13.8.2009 passed in
O.S.N0.730'7/2005 on the file of the XXII Addl. City Civii Judge.
Baiigaiore. dismissing the suit for partition and sepéufate
possession.   

This appeal coming on for admission, this  the *

delivered the fOli0\ViI1gi~

JUDGMENT 

There is no representation for “appe11ai1ts”,’iit

2. Appeal is dismissed f’oii’hofigp:fosee:i;tion_§
sd/-3
” ‘ Tudgé

bnV*