IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
[CIRCUIT BENCH A1' DHARWAD
DATED nus THE sand DAY or MARCH, ;V-f _ j:
nmronm
THE I-l0N'BI..E MR. Jusncig A,:-8. .B( 3!ffL1§'r€.§.'~. « 3
12.9.5 Ho. 2322;; 1
BETWEEN:
SR1 BASAVANT VENKAPEA. pAj*1p_ 1 '
smog DEAD BY ms %
L sMT.yA'LLU8:§1_w'/_0 __BAsAv5_N'%r PATIL
AGED AB.Q¥.JT 53 YRS'
occ; '.HOUSE'HOifD'V".,V ._ ~
R/AT H NO.1'13 ;~.JAl§_'AR4WADI
BELGAUM 590 0:01 %
2. __sR';uYALLAI«>9A B SAVANT PATIL
. - Px(3E._D ABOUT 'ms
v. 3 acct; AGRICULTURE
T "R/'A'_r'H'%:§TC;--.%1 13, JAFARWADI
BELGA_UN_I~5'90 em
3. "'4-.sR;;'PARAsHURAM BASAVANT PATIL
Affr}-33$) ABOUT 33 YRS occ: MASON
.A R /'AT H NCL113, JAFARWADI
'.1-SELGAUM 590 001
' 4}; HSRI NAGESH BASAVANT PATIL
AGED ABOUT 31 YRS
OCC: RICKSHAW 9RiVE'R
R/AT H NO. 1 13, JAFARWADI
BELGAUM 590 001
J
".
(By Sri.: G E SHASTRY, AEVOCATE)
5. SMT MALLAWWA
wxo BASAVANT PATIL
AGEE ABOUT 41 YRS
occ: HCIUSEHOLD
R/AT SOUDAGAR COLONY
KANGRALI KH
TQ BELGAUM 590 01
MA H
1. SR! YALLAPPA NINQAEPA ' ;
AGE MAJOR'.__ ; _
OCCAGRiCL?:1!{'L?R'E % 'V
RJAT J.'-WARWADI' 9c)_SI.'.._ V A
KADGL; Tr; END'=ms1'.': VBEILVGAUM'
RESPONDENTS
(By S1:i.: :v_'~'» S4.PAT11}'$}§"jVEAr4§§JEE<:' M PAWAR, ADVOCATES)
EsA'"<§S Ié'ILE1)A..U,I§; 100 OF cpc AGAINST THE
JU9GE3.MENT'8¢ DEGREE Em 18.6.07 PASSED IN R.A.NO
«_ 23/V04. QN THE Ei'i--LE____QF' THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
'EELGAUI?yz, VDISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
'i'HE -JUVDGEEMELNT AND DEGREE DTD 24.11.99 PASSED
*5-rs: 35jE1«; 9a'f%EE.«v*'oE THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDL. CIVIL
JU?)GE, (gJE3};_}3ELGAUM.
7;t:~:i'1~:~_: APPEAL COMING on ma ADMISSIGN THIS
. , .1' 'EBAY. TH'E'coUE*r SELIVIZRED THE FOLLOWING:
w
JUDGMENT
The appellant is before V appeal filed under Section 100 of ,_
assailing the concurrent éier;is’in:.:i by ‘V V
the Trial Court as well as ‘the
2. Heard the Sleastrxjr, learned
counsel the appeal
6u§’WhefIie1’~’$§ny substantial question
of Law aiises’ for COItséde:fatiQI’1V..in this appeal.
‘ :3.:_’I._u is necessazy to notice the facts in
present appeal. The appellant herein
w.*I1’;f i§as_« in 0.55 No. 351/199 had sought for
V._dec1amtio,n cf the sake deed dated 92.011979, registered on
A 5:197? at S}. No.1€}25 of the Sub—Registrar, lielgaum, as
‘ 111211 and vofi, since according to the plaintifl” the saici sale
u had not been executed by the plaintifi”.
I
4
4. En this regard, the defendant had disputed the-‘Claim
put forth by the piaintifi’. The Trial Court framed .33
10 issues for its consideration. in order to
the plaintiff had examined himseIf:a’s”?W~1*’_:and” V’
the documents at Exs.P~1 to ?~9, ]iis_:fav:o1;r; ._
defendant had examm ed _a.i_sc> as ” V
DW-1 and Dw–2 and marked dceijizteflts ax’ Exsgxi to !)–3.
The ‘finger print Expert during the
proceedings cf the v_suit:’iés%éts :exammV.” The Trial
Court, evidefiee before it had referred :0
the evideefiee i:z:x,_ also noticed -the evidence
tendered fln,ge’,:.f S Expert and had come to the
‘~ eoneiazsidfi {That deed, in fact had been executed by
me accordingly the suit filed by the plaintiff” was
difiniissed. — Lj ~– A’
n 5.VVAfgai11st the judgment and decree dated 24.}. 1.1999,
‘ pressed in the said suit, the piaitztfifl’ was before the Lower
-~A-fipellate Court in RA No.23/22004. The Lower Appenate
V Court has re-appreciated the evidenw avaiiabie before it and
on noticing the findings rendered by the Txial Court: has once
1.
again considered this aspect of the matter.
the Lower Appeliate Court has also noticed v _
tendered by the parties. That .re§;ere3ee*:}1ee’.
been made to the evidence of b:’:_1_zx1mel§?’, Afi;1.ger’V
Expert who had stated with go irindreeebions ‘V
being that of er: bjf”31o£ieing the
admitted as well as v”_ei;;1ij;1.1″essio3).s, more
particularly Oufl’ The Lower
Appellate tendered by
the compared the Thumb
impreseim:1e.’_ as: H ‘under Section 73 of the
Evidence to the appreciation of the said
‘~ the Iaefiiier—Appeflate Court has aise noticed the
‘co4édx.1eiV.,ef plainfiif in not rising any dispute with regard
tr)’ despite admittedly having knowledge about
5-6 grier to filing of the suit.
6.A11other aspect, which has been noticed by the
a Lower Appeiiate Court, is that though the burdefi was heavy
on the plaintifi” with regard to the contention put forth before
I
‘1
the Triad Court, two ¥arothers of the piaintifi” had noiflaeen
examined with regard to the status of the K
aspects would indicate that both ‘I’ria1 Court ‘%:héf
Lower Appellate Court have c;’5fié.idexe(:§, pev:ideI:1ce”¢
‘available before them and arrived
said appreciation of the evideziéee» doesx.1.1é)£_ ‘”6f’ any ‘V
perversity nor error of _.T I ‘not-‘ any
substantial question of in this appeal.
Aeedf¢i.i}ig1yy devoid of merit stands
dismisé{e_d.” NoVoziie:f H
sd/…
….. .. n Iudge
1′(;§t:;eis:§§s ‘.”.’»%:._