Smt Sarojamma vs Smt Gowramma W/O Nanjundappa on 5 August, 2009

H§THE{fiC§¥COURT(H?KARNATAKAEW7BA§§A¥Q§3

DATED Tms THE: 5&1 DAY OF' AUGU s':'.r§€)'0§>".'V1-~.f:   .

BEFOREHW

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTKEE K;.N.xE:é1%1Aaz;§;szAR;Am:§zA 7

R.S.A.NGi2g10/C§Q O8

BENNEEN:

1 SMT SAROJAM§E%2§"«. .
W/C) MUNiBALAP?"A.'-  Q. 
AGED ABQUT 47_f{3'A_Rs,_ j' 

2    
S/O_.Pa§UN§i3A{;A'P1fh§   % A
AGES) A,BQu'1*'----2.4 ¥.;'s;;.a§<s,i--

:3 : i§'z§4V(;}§iP;'§V'ENi":3i5éP.. "~.:--_' % M
3/0 'PvIUN'}i3ALAP'P£;--« %
A339 A2.3<;:;*:#  1' mags,

ALLVARE R }-M m+1'.oc§?H'ANAI~mLL: VILLAGE,
JIQANE *}~iOBLi,'ANEKA.L 'I'Q.,

  EANiTx£:fi4ORE DISF'-'S62 105. .. APPELLANTS

  1-gr}m s;~:azmNATa,Am. )

A§B;-- 

 .. 1  GGWRAMMA mo NANJUNDAWA

" AGED ABOUT' 39 YEARS,
' R/AT' BEGAHALLI VILLAGE,
JIGANI HGBLI, ANEKAL 'I'Q.,
BANGIXLORE DIST -- 562 :06.



2 MUNIBALAPPA S/O LATE MUNEGURAPPA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3 JAGADEESH s/0 LATE MUNIBALAPPAQ'
AGED ABOUT 2:3 YEARS, .. _ 
RESPONDENT 2 AND 3   ;
ARE R/AT BHOOTHANAHALLI VIL"LA{}_E;
JIGANI HQBLI, ANEKAL 'I"Q.,: _  
BANGALORE DIST. ' _ 

4 MADDURAPPA 3/0 LATE _¥<AMAIAH "
AGED ABOUT 6?'Y_EAF€S,_ '  _ ' 
R] AT BHOOTHANAHAL LIEVILLAGE; _
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKA1.'}TQ.,  " V  1_ 
BANGALORE a1s'1*+:=;--5:2 19¢ ; .V A' RESPONDENTS

THIS"'R}"S_.15:...-§§'3 .f;|EI'Jl].E'f£_|}~.1jf'"SV"].!0(V)' cap CPO AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT [gap 1;:'e'1F~:<:,f_I'<*E':";"*.«_':;3A'1*':?;_VI:::' 25.1.2008 PASSED IN
i2.A,NQ.%1V?_0ja_6 ':1-:';;..,gD».m2_.A.N"29.9;~:36"eF3' PASSED IN 0s.N0.138/2003
ON *rHE"'x!?IL§, 0;' 'mI3f."_.~PRo. CIVIL JUDGE QJRDN.) 3:.
JMFCV, ANEKAL.» _  ' 

 ';'-513;.R,S.'A.""'-COMING on FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

 'FHE CvC}Ui?.T"DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

z has been delay of 173 days in filing this

‘A V’ V This delay is sought 1:0 be candoned by filing an

Alzggéfificafion under Section 5 of the L’m1§tatien Act. The

V’ éppficaijon is supported by the afiidavit sf appellant

Kg,

No.2. The only mason assigned in the afiiéavit is found

at para 3 which reads as under:

“I submit that after obtaini:”z::g”‘
§u<:lgment and decree I could not
counsel due to my il}~h€:al*:I1"a;1lti
inconvenience. I submit 117A
of my i31–hea3th I eoiitaefied
instructed him to file tljlere
is a little delay. ap;;')Veéal;"

in support of. the :16 deeumentaxy

evide11ce–_is “show as to from which aiiment
the seeohcl lapgfiellj{1Ilt’* suffering from and from what

‘$0 It is not stated as to what

» other appellants not to take necessary

H ‘sfe*ps “Appeal. The reasons set out in para 3

extmciedhv shave certainly carmot constitute sufiicient

~ eailse fer condoning the long delay of U3 days in filing

appeal. Nevertheless, with a View to find Gut;

whether there am Hi} reasons to reject the application

5’:

without issuing notice to the ether Side, I have heard

the Ieained counse}. for the appeiiant on the of

the appeal. However, on hearing the

the appellants and on perusal ef the V’

appeal, I am of the opinion that

involve any question ef”T1e*;sf much Eese A

questien of law. Therefere,,____1f’~see.._, no Qreaeonvi to issue

notice of the epplicatiien’ }’eé’;x}ndent.

2. The” 2, 3 and 5 in

O.S.N o. file; the Principal Civil Judge

(Jr.Dn’.’),.__ Aneke1§ féeefioedent No.1 herein was the

Reepeneeet N032, 3 and 4 were the

4 6 respectiveiy. The plaintiff filed

.tIt’ie_ tfrie reiief of injunction in respect of the

pfemrftji zeeasuring 20 gtmtas in Survey No. 31 situated

at , aBoet:lr1ana}1al1i Village, Jigani Hebli, Anekal Taluk

alie. contending that her paternal gand father and

his two sons constituted Hindu joint famiiy and after

ex

the death of her wand father as Wei} as father, there

was a partition which was reduced into w:iti;_~rg._V1on

22.12.1999 and under the said pa1titio1i§”‘tr’?§e.::

schedule property fell to her share» and to =

said paxtitjon, her name was mutated in the ‘r*eVe1fme

records in respect: of t1.r1e’t_su;’..t. schedule

thus from the date or the saiciflpartif£ioIi,’ sne%;:;.–:t:s been in
lawful possession the property and
the defendants’ whoghéiveh; ef right, titie or
interest*”0x}er’. property, are Uying to
ir1terfe1_”e of the same, therefore they

are reqztired to: ‘oe’~rest:rained by means of permanent

…..

‘defendants 3 to 5 contested the suit by

filirig s%’ritte§1 statement wherein they contended that the

Stet eehedule property belenged to their grand mether

who bequmthed the suit seheduie property in

their favour under a W133 dated 27.3.1991 and thus they

1’?

are in lawful possession of the suit; schedu1e_4~}§ro_r_:>e_rty

and the plaintiff has no marmer of right,

over the same. After the partie_s…iec1 evidef:ee,. f*:1e’_’

Court on assessment of oral axid

decreed the suit holding eeerl

possession cf the Sui}: “preperty.._p:1r$ua1}§ to
the partition efi’eete’ea}. As against these judments cf the courts