Sri Chennabasappa Mahanthappa … vs Sri Kalmatappa Mahanthappa … on 13 November, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT or   '  "  "' 

cmcurr amen arr nnanwgp"-.._ ' L"

DATED 1'1-us THE 1313 1>.4a.'¢;':"'%¢'$"1'«*"_'1~':'<3V\r"'31s&B-{E:_':I»€.--T_ 

3m?oam V._ 

THE HOWBLE naR.JUsTr=cf£-- MQELAEI fiavbbf

WRIT PE'!'!TIO!§"' BE"1"<: 3ji§a3 03942008" 

BETW SEN

1

SEE' :c§§§.ENi§A3AsAPPA '.rs,5AH;aNTHAPPA JAVALI
 49,'t'"EA.RS,   

 "O{}CV¥'{¢I3.RiCU'LT'URE Mi) BUSINESS

: ' R[Cv.1 3.U:§ 'WAND, HOSPET

 "  AM):

1

 , RUDi2A15i?A ' ~~"MAI*iANTHAPPA JAVALI S10

'VMAHANTAPPA JAVALI
AGED :46 YEARS

   OCC ACFHCULTURE AND I-3US§NESS
  OPP BUS STAND , HOSPET

 PETITIONERS

  'Sh: HEMANT R CHANBANGOUDAR )

SR1 KALMATAPPA MAHANTHAPPA JAVALI
S] O MAHANTAPPA J

AGE MAJOR, OCC AG~Ri AND BUSINESS
Rjtf) OPP BUS STAND HOSPET 

 ifik

wi/"



2, Indisputabiy, the suit insfitutfsd I :_:i:1s.e

I'€S§OI1d€fltS I and 2 against the pcfifiofiém '   

respondents 3 and 4 is for mzidifififi  "of  

partnership finn under the

also is not in ciispute that j fiéiriifion

scpazate: possession was institiitéfi 1′ ¥:V$f,%L-};>eQ’t§.oi:§éx’s’VVil and 2 as
against respondentsd; VA not against the
paxfilership V” ivfien fructified into

judgment in RFA 43412008 is

peI1éS%1g’}”h¢’. petitioner filed I.A.9 under
Sec. proceedings in the suit until

dispasal of on the premise that the decision

AiI1 ‘L’–i:I’::’1t=::,.js213’1: ._an6 §}ié decision at” this court in RFA would

other. in the afidavit aocompanying the

étp;’§}icafi§§’9;–.Vr;5;cept for rstafing that all the parties in the

prcse’;::¢.vt°;311it are bound by the judgment and decree to be

A ‘ _ ‘ in RFA, did not point out as to how the partnership

– 3″‘ zespondent would be bound by the judgment and

decree. Admittedly, cause of action for both the suits are

distinct and separate. So also it is not shown

fijsfik

£:~j’V
%w\*

whe% issues framed in bath the suits

which would leaci to recording of ‘i.wc.a–. o11

identical issues between the pam’»”‘es:;’_’_’ icrf

relevant matexial facts,the uiaiivéeurt by_thcV . L’

zejected the IA.

3. Havigcpg    i¢y¢i1':;:1p11gne:i, in my
considered}    be taken to the

findmgs,_V;§a,s§:;$?; arrived at by the trial
courfl, 1 T 2 .

ThcL§mt’pmitj on:_'”is,:Lae£:ozding1y rejected.

Sd/-»
Judge

” ,. €333′