MFA.NQ,318?'[2008
IN THE EIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATEB THIS THE 24m DAY OF !i0VEl§§BER "
BEFORE
THE HoN*n;E zaR..3:rs'rIc1':{'1?i;G.'RA1§Emi:_" _
£§.F'.A.No.318'7[2VGO3-.
BETWEEN : ' K V. '
SR1 MANdUNA'?HA
S10 LPJFE FAQMAMMA
23.GEfl ABOUT 45 YEARS
Rm'? No.4, 13'? MAIN, HERBAL' V
BANGALGREZ - 5&3 A0127; ' ' 1
' _~ APPELi.AH'i'
(BY SR1 NYE'. iHAia?.¥;:E,S'£§¥K:,3E\.r;';::§£"':i'gg§£:w:>A:<1§1'e3}§ :»1Aé?PA
'map 1-'i'E©UT_'"Z--.G v--3:A';2's
._'j%"3'€a1s$ffJ5YAaz§:;iAV. ..... -
« _ " W /*5; :,A*m3: T KOL%§~I§Z)APPA
* .. .m_§:ii:w 'ga.B:;u*r 58 YEARS
1" .3 -..%Mii:\:Vii':*§*,LL;§P?A APPASWAMY
Sm .LA:'{.'E MUNEYELLAPPA
AG--F;Q';"~;BOUT 54 YEARS
.. RESPONDENTS ETC) 3 ARE
"«,.RfA'I' NO.1G7, GOVENWKPPA GARDEN
_.{§UDE?JABAHALLY, R.'T'.NAGAR POST
Bt'~aNG£&L{3RE-- 5360 G32
sis/iii' RAMAKKA
W} O LATE GOVINSAFPA
AGED ABQUT 75} YEARS
5
Mir*'A.N€)£'318?{2G§8
SR1 C G §'URSSHC;3'§'HAMA
S10 LATE C'r{)V§N§3A?P&
AGED ABGEJT 3'? YEARS
SR; (:1 G RAVI
s/<3: LATE GOVINDAPIPA .
AGED ABOUT 34 "YEARS I
RESPC%N§EN"§'S 4 '3:'0 6 ARE T.
§«2[A'E' :~:w§¢1.Ni'LAYA'~-..j;~.._ _ _
aasnwa --HE'}3EéAL C~'.CfiIE' ._i'«J._NiIs'3'i\I'1' I§,~ii(_".':H SCHOOL
HEEE.3SAL.,_ Bawczagoaa-waao £324....
SM'-if Asw.¢,'1'Har4ARA¥m:AMMA
£}[{}"E?H29;NAIVI£~zit'»._:' . "
W {O Lmfm: 7: PGEUNXYAPFA
may AEBQUT "VG Y'::AR~s
:s:<:;}.2, :{:,AN§A?PA'GA§2i3EN
- E'-§1'$§if'£xL_YA, At:::..I.c.";19 'E'HAN'AMMA V ,
W/O SHAMANNA '
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
A§\%UGO1\%E§ANA}--§ALLY
WIJSAKOTETALUK , A. ' "
BANGALC}RE~56O 06? " .;..RE$PGNI§i2fiITS
'I'H1S MFA FELED 1413.43 RE.iL_E..'1(r.)_. CFC "A-c:gI§1.sj;'1' 'I'I-1E
JEJDSMENT {)A'f'}3ZD :5,.+1-2,2203: PA.3:;E:;=._ ON EA NQ1 EN
o,s.N<:n;2:06,/05 ON THE F'-'II.;E_ 3}?' '1':ji~if*3 ,§.{fl_I)L.CI'PY CIVIL 85
SESSICJNS .5L:§c'*w:;'R 1:1.
THIS Mm' C£i;;je1zv§m;3"--«:3rs2*i E€3§e"A:§Nri'ss_:2ELr§.r.r;:;'e:;:ymtg','?§,1,1;»:;)§.x1:--.:a::_:::VV .
....
This is directed against an
iflififiifi ofdef gassed by the trial
«c:ou%:=€;¢h;g Qoufi”rfi.’.___the 2 Aciditionai City Cfiivil Judge,
dismissing i.A.3I filed in the suit
Nvé./V2006 by the appellant hsrein for grant:
.Qf teakgahsfazy injunction to restrain the defendants
“”jaIi€z1af.ing the ‘A’ ‘B’ 3% ‘G’ Suit scheduie
…_”V””pr{13pe:*{ies pertzding disposal ofthfi suit.
MF’A.NO.318′?'[ 2038
2. I haw heard the learned counsel for the
appeiiazit and perused the imp3.1gI::ed order.
substance, the trial Ciaurrt by referring to t_Ej:’é* A’
pending sxlits has declined to grant the ‘1513:’tV
of the hnpugzed order: _
*5. 92. Further it iL*;’-::Lz¥.€3€}_ fact that
in one maregsuit legai _
heirs of if _Pi£ic£mma.a:v2d”‘ -iThg_;1;-izmma are
pertaining ta
the”‘fa%m’ly pr¢p¢m¢;.4%%% 30, it is clear that,
azrea.dg :u;a ks;;::%s O.S.No’2849/2300 and
,f§{O’?”.’*§¢/ 200i?..igie5re éaending for deterinination of
. sf t}V*’ié’Qnar’t:}3s in the suit” schedule
and in one of the suit
c3;s.z%:’:3;%2849/2009 the present piaintijj’ _is
.E2efé;f;da§}1t £9.11. Further acoorfiing to the
.. , defe:*–ridcmt, (me more suit O.S.No.2640/ I 988 :9
* ._ci;-‘.30 pending. But admittedly, when the
remedz; is avaiiabée for the piaintifi’ to claim his
partition, in the wit C5.S.No.2849/2000 as a
one of the defendant, the question of fresh suit
ix £1/
Mf*’AtNO§3 }.8?[2UG8
does not arise. Moreover, when the Chinnanrfsg
had executed a: Will and bequeathed the ”
share in favour of the grand mether tf1;a..
piaintgfi’ 61230, 30 certainly size” has
her ciaim in the share of
Piilamma. Therefore p4§ainti;§¥'” u
‘ estabiish a prima-facie ¢£:::é:é; hencezi “Aez–.%;s:..£sgr
this point against Vthg plqirzfgfif “~
a3nderfifigu§sfippfi§éy§ ;
3. Having :.r:3g§,;a;ifci ‘V’;g3V<;:'11di31g iegai
praceedings' bets of the case,
the disgzretifii Court in declining
to does not appear 1:0 be:
arbitrary of» Cap:*ici6′:_1S”‘t0 Warrant interference in
V’ 2,3-‘i*I:o gq:’oufid”:G’admit the appeal.
._ “c§A§;s1i1issed.
Sd/-9
“Iudga
Jjfiffig