IN THE HIGH ceum OF KARNATAKA M 3ANGALQ:2E:’_”‘jT._
Dated: This the 1931 day of Nevembar A’
BEFCIRE
THE’. HOIKVBLE MR.JUS’I’§CE fv.>J;a!-:;AN–:f4A* 1?:%:’;$;.:s:_
REGULAR SE-CQND APPEAL Na;”1_é>’90l213f0_§. ~. ” ”
BETWEEN :
1 SM’? PAPAMMA V . ,
W/0 LATE VENKATARfi;M_fg.N.APPA ‘ _
AGE 55 YEARS ‘ ‘ 1
2 sR:CV~i\§i&–5¥§éJUriATEi..§;~’:
3; C} um: ‘€?EgN 1<Afm::;3Mm=:j;\.PPAW;
AGE 533 'fE:_ARS–. . x
3 F~?'ji:'»&t3i§::;i<:.A.;3:;j"- _
:31 Q LATEE,'-fET~§ KA'7f?§'RAMfxNAPPA
AGE 28 '{EA«RSV
All ARE R/AT CHAENASANDRA VILLAGE
; ' B:mRA:~€,ALLI HOBLE T
" B}?;N€;%ALORE…S.£}UTH Tawx
B*AT£{31~1";LORE 5:50 66?.
” .. APPELLANTS
‘(B£5;*’VS:iVGA’.:§’j_i;}ii{SHMIPATHY REDDY, ADV. 3
AN?’ 1..
— Sm’ M§§NiNA.NJAEviMA W/0 LATE PAPAEAH
szwcg man, BY ms
H51; BYRAMMA Wm ERANNA
2 RCEMPAKKA Dffi §3’PsPAEPs.H
AGE 66 YEARS
R/AT’ CHANDRAPURA “B”CROSS
NELAVAGALU HQBLI,
H{)SKC}’I”i~3 TALUK.
BANGAL-GEE RURAL DISTRWCEE’
BANGALORE 560 067.
3 SW LAKSHMAMMA
W/O BYRAPPA
AGE 55 YEARS :
R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLELGE ‘
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI ~’
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE 560 067. ” _
SR1 MUNISWAMY
SENCE DEAD, BY
4 SM’1′.C3HOWDAMMA . i
W10 LA’rgMUNIswAMiY’..
AGE 60 YEARS _
R/AT TITiA’1′;+u:4tsR ‘VI£,L’23§GE’ _ -V
UTTAR.AHAL1..1′;’–H’0g;_§,I’ ‘ .
BAf\§C§ALi’)_RE s’::wz!4Ti{‘*m;,1§K”v.§
U}
SR1 sAMP;%mi % ‘. %
$3.0 LATE MUNISWAEJIE’
AG1E_1_39 YEAR’S ~ _ — %
RfAT”–HEC}Gf§D.§;NA}iALL1
‘vaavimug 141031;:
” BAN C’;ALOR.F;…S_G’¢§TH TALUK
‘ .6″ $.jR’i~C2~.i€3£:DAPPA
E§[G.VV’L§\.TEv*’PAPA§AH
‘?’—<.._ Sm §..iI;L.EYELLAPPA
'.330 L.A'"f'E PAPAIAH
.. " 3» i-Zéiéi BYRAPPA
R6 TO R8 ARE
RJAT CHANNASANBRA CQLQM
BIEARAHALLI HQBLZ
BARE QALURE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE 5:360 067.
RESPC}NI3EN’I’S
(33; Sri I”-LR. SHI\fALiNGAiAi–i, A{)\i’.}
3
RSA FILED U/S100 OF CFC AGAINST THE
dU’D(}MEP~1’I’ AND [BECKER D’T’.1.2,i2()06 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.179/ 1995 ON THE FILE 012* THE ADDL. 32$.’
ANS sass. …IUI}GE1, F”‘£’C~I”\f, BANGALORE: RURA.;,’_’£§§ift:~r%j”;.,.”‘vV. V
BANGALORE, If)ISMiSS£NG THE: APPE._.{§; :}a72\;j:”‘1*:;%.
CQNWRMENG ‘mg JUDGMENT Amgw». . D.ECr1?EE 1′
::r1t-22.9.1995 PASSED IN 0.s.m{;39Qjés:é €}2\fi
OF’ THE: ADDL. 1; MUNSIFF, BANGA;;,Q:2£:”.’
THZS APPEAL comma ‘G:si”=FOR A::>_r’s/:;.$§;I<:$::;I fiixs
DAY, THE <:0uRT :}B:LIx$EREp.?m'E_F£:LLowmG
The pieifitgfffs Sufftzred ,3
dismigésai < 3f* fheir:V'1.s'uif'ai1d the lower appeliate caurt
. c'£ismis$er_i_ me by thenl and this the
piaixgijffs 1"1é{v'e c01.i1e :'1p'.'in this second appeal against
mfzt fi1'1&ifzg$ cf the courts beknv.
V' 'E356-:"pIair1ti§'f's filed the suit for (ie«::}3.z'ati0r1
that. thgy 31%'. the abseiute owners in possession of the
sz._:s.i'; sicfiedule pmperty and also for penrganelzt
"i191§u3ictic:I1 against the defendaxlts arid it was their
""ét}11te:1ti0n that the 3" p£ai;1tifi' being the Wifsz 0f
'ifarlkataramanappa and the 2" 3.1131 3" piaintiifs
%~
'I'
being his sens, after tha death
Venakataramanappa, contixlued 11:3 enjoy thyg'
scheduie property and it is 3.15:3: their Casé — M
year 198!) there was 3 par%jti0:i t1r1:: f§:a311;il§9«'
members :31' V€nkatarama:i:.a_ppa ~._afid. in
partitien, the suit pruperty ta V iiiie:
13' piaintiifs lausbandé"'~E'011:駧jf:g:…j;1iefiéfe:i(:e by
thci e::i:::fendants,_ thtii {has trial
court. for the §:1f0:}e$aid:*.reEi&1'. "
I5. "" .Ei3<:7fr:tz1c¥:.V;aI};tsfi v:}1eir part contested
the said' $i_1it the sstand that Whik: the
partitian is. aI§I}1i'5{_t€{"3§., £116}; dfiflifid the Cass ef the:
" _'p1a'i_f;tiff§ .35 régsams existence of any laud in
:3~;';Ncs.":.3 *
V But aacmrdhig to the defendarits, it was
i
f0Zf;11€€{V_iIii{} 7a 13.}; out and difierent at' land
were 'said to diffemnt }3€1''S()I1S.
: 4. ()1: H16 basis 0f the pleadings of the
V' "uparties, thfi trial court fraxned the reli-tzvant igsues as
found in pa§a.6 of the judgxnant 01' the appeliate seam:
311:1 after appmciatmg the evidfirxce 0:1 I'6CGI'ۤ, {ha
}
'I
iearnad Judge of the trial court did not accept the
case cf the plaiintfis and accordingiy the Suit
dismi$s€dw The lawer app:-Lllate crourt alga éi$:z1iS$.%_:fd'.j* "
the appea: preferred by the plaintiffs and cigifig T '
S0, 3316 lawer appallate court alsfa s:3j1§4S¢.r¢§d .._
piaintiffs have 11<:at been a;b1€:___ £10 V
iand which they claimcd in E';}%';«"EV'§fu..}L302/'3 'S-'tiil égisted
éespm-:2 farmauon of =.13,;y_c:::,1t;_Var;<1"..Ad1ff§rent xaéfifir
being said ta c3:iffQr<:11:§"* pé:ifso1'}_$;._ appeflate
ceurt aiso.fr§-a1I1€'i _§§tJ1é1' S£rio}:.sfj– discféparieies in the
p1a:n:;3§fs*T¢a;:3¢__% in_§.:?{€,::'1'e{'<)rse.'u ii A decmm to iI1terfe1"e
with i:h€:' j;T1z:i;g.,rfl~:':;:.1tA:_L§:;:ftI'iai court.
~ Vv .L6 a;:";:1<::§1____g;;r3u:;s€1 for the appeiiazits argued
' i:.i'iéit, b@_th thé +::_0uri:s were in error in lmt appreciating
f:}1e"V eI;ideéij;{;é5= 'V frem proper angle: and thsugh the
gyafiiiiifirg admitteci, ya': the murts below failed ta
V' :~ " if(éé'd.f{}r1"e evidence 161?; in by the plaintiffs and 313:) the
fiéaitumaxats praducsd. Lézarned (3(}'t11E1S€1 took me
through the judgneilts af tha 3011115 helm? in thig
regard. 4L'
xv"
6. Having heard the submissions of fzhe
appc:11a:1ts caunsei and on going througli .
judgments of the courts below, I find M
piaintiffs have mat 1361311 able to f;:éi:1′::”:«.z;1::.’w’:t}i’2:_€:1e2=;:*
Dictum of their case befortt 11316: <i;4,?i1r'£, iil~a;$.n1t1€:f1«.. "
as, the b0L111darit:s mention€:d '§;sy '£,hem 'me_"'_2:1{5'i', id be
found in existence s.vhc;=;f_1 coziiijaréd 'fig the btjuridaries
d “ia11{i_ jaI1d the third
aspecfiis -are not sure of tha extent
of iané ‘évifil-1’égaf& §ic:. the suit is filed by them
311:3 git ‘is.:101’.: dia§3V§Vi1§:ther it is 8 guntas of land 01′ 11
A1331′: fmm this, the document
‘;¥;’_§x’.”P6 and P7 also revea1§d that after the
-V my :::=11t”wa’:’~;s’f0rH1ed ii} Sy.N0.13()/3, sevfiral $3 of
uIazT1€i_AW é’i’e sold 1:0 different persons and the piainiiiffs
– f;;a£f€ not been abie to produm any evitiencs 1:9 Show
mtuhat 8 gurztas of land in S_gaNo.13Q/3 was still in
€xis1:eI1c*:: and it: has also CGi”1SiCi€’.I’€d thfi evidence cf
ma;-1 vzhc) has spoken to thfi effect that the W
}/
‘F
«-1
plainfijfs htzsband was given 7 guntas sf Land in a
partitieri, out 01’ which, he sald 3 guntas of lancifio
(>116 Bhoomik, 2 guntas to Chaudry and ”
guntas 3:0 Venkatappa.
7. Thuss, on a car&fu1:=.A_appr¢Cia–tié31″–r;f”Vt;i3ew, .’
avidence, thus lower appel§at&_ c01i17t ‘i’:>un=i”‘*:f’;V”;€~;fg tifie VA
plaintiffs have fafled te estabiisa ‘i;¥:1_§::ir cm: mi have
failed to establish tE1é;t’– if1_gi1t1:<j_a.:V§ ek£j:a§;d%» still exists in
the fiuit survey « if V
of aforesaid I'€£1St)I1iI1g
given the '§§£t.:;{=;;}:?{» Vaifijibfifiiate court and both '£116:
courts beidirv ..,if;avi11g '-c<:$i1cu;:'ent1§,r held 011 facts that
"t.hé" pléfiiztiifg ixaveféiled to prove tlaeir case, I tic: not
saris': ._'sLi.b.$"7:antia1 questien of law arising for
r:<3:'xssic1t_:i'ati§:iI1 and as such, the appsal lacks merit
V it dismissed,
Sd/Q
Iudqé
Bvr: