Sri S P Lokeshappa vs Sri S Gangadharaiah on 24 February, 2009

~   A «.3 P EAKSFIINA MU'R"fI~iY

383: Sr: 3 NAGARAJA. ADV.)

1:}: mm HIGH Comm" 0}? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
IBATED mg THE 34"' my 012* Fggaufly, 2099
BEFORE
Tim HOWBLE mm JUSTICE rm: NAGANiOHz\N mas':   1,: "  

R.S.A. Na. 121'z;2ee7 

BETWEEN I

...-----------------,-------m

1 srg. S P LOKESHAPPA
S/O.PAR\i'ATHA.h;IALL5kIAjri
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS'  H

l"°-J

Sari. P'ARAVA'ITfl«iALLAIAH

DEADBYLRS   

2A Smt.3AYA1\zfl$r£Ai--.   ~ 'f _   _ 
'W50. m.RVAi'II~L§:zx4,A11L.IAH~V_T'j-.-- '-- ,
AGED AB{})L?T'v.T§f0-'£1E§g§.RS H  V  «-

EB st-i.sP;:>1~1<_af{APm%':'%%%  . ;
sso. FARAV'AT}1ANi.fiL Lax;  % 
AGED AB£L'LT'f,55 xrgms    * A

20 Sri. S1? §.<§YA1*u€.'N;¢{AA " 
.. ~ . A' s;Q_.»P:aRg;v.AuLmwL-xL:,A;AH
V A3112) ABQUT.§16 YEARS

21:  %s';1; P €2:s;.:}Ixé§iée.~:;¢.T:La?PA
3; .PARAV.Ei-THA;\;iAiLAIAH
AGED A.Bm_3':. 44 YEARS

  §;f{3.PARAVATHAl\»1ALLAIAH
  9..G £1;; Amm 23 YEARS

%  Am, ARE R;'AT.DODDAA§{NA PALY:%

'V -»vi%iATHGDU HO LI

u " ' V. :iu;~3Auui<.275.!2oe1 ON iQ=%~*  JUi{)GE
{SR.I)N.}, HOLALKERE, DISMISSENG  A§{£?EsfsL AND
C'.O1~3FIP.1%Q\EG ms 3L'D{}E; m1~Ifm.--:s:I}wVr):::r;1z;:E £§z\3'33D 25.9.2030
PASSED 3»: 03.240. 513z:«s:~3_5'--- .c:N;frHE  {FF  7'ADDL.C.ifV}Z"L
IUDGE(JR.DN.),HOSA,?}L?i§fiA . * '  ' 

ms APPEAi...Vcs:>1SLi:3N€}' ~3Nr'T§5{33%."A;Dh}i:sSI0N ms DAY,
11$ COURT DELE'v'EP{E3}  

Respcngkfnt is  piaintiif afid amiéilants are the defendants before
th;3"'l'1i:':1 Co¢j1}§:~ judggtiiént-------fsi"' convenience, the parties are referm-d

to tliéizr sm1ii's-beAtE:a;feV'?31g:'vTI:'iiai Court,

2."P1;;i31tift" filééfiiffirvée suits before the Tzial Court £3 0.3. Nos.

_::'T5.1s§;'19§5, 5I1".«"'£iIVI{1 513,-'I995 fez' declaration sf title and I'€C0'v'€!I}' of

c 'Ifi«.g1i tizese three suits the piaintiff is cammon and defendants

 - '_a1ie  The Tri.a£ Court under segarate judgnenfs dscrsed an the

  '  flied by the piaimgiff. Aggrim-'ed by the Suclgnent and Decree

  Triai (hurt, the dafmdants filed three segagate apgeals in RA. Nos.

dar"

 



2?4;'2fi01, 2?3?2l'}01 and 2'?5f29G1. 111$ L-Gwer Appeilaie Ceurt under

threa separate judments dated 19.02.2001? oiisrnissed all the three appeals _ 
filed by the dsfendants. Aggrieved by thess judgments of tlw Triai Ccv_1:::t_:

and the Levee? Apgeilate Cami, the defendants in (3.8. No. 5 14f1§*§5  V'  H

R.S.A. No. 1216f200?, defzmdants in us. N0. 511..-'Z99§.fii¢d"R.$;A;VI.2§é;V'  

1215,9307 and the écfendants in 0.3. No. s:3;:1%99s;'%A_fi:e'a k:.SfV'£i:'-$5; 

121?s'20{)7 an the fiie of this Ccurt.  viéia jndgrgtézfi  

22.09.2003

dismissed R,S.A. N93. %12:5r2oo%?%_”am:_ 12:25;2é07..,:,ga;;;%ed
09111236} an both ihs side submit t¥iat t}k:_ 2.j;1r;'{i” ii:’*.:9lved in this

apgezfl is similaz to the other two apgeais .:.ajreatig tfiis Couzi.

3. For the rea5an5§siai§;§{‘i11 RfiS.A;. 3:363.”«12’i6;’2.GQ_7_f3nd 121S:”20{T?

disposal on 22.{}9.20%?}§, iiifignissed as there is no
substantiai questidfi”T’of :!’.::w a1’i3x:;::$— for ‘f2iy”c’5nsiderration. filwdered

accordingly,

3d/-5
Iudg”‘é’ ‘

– ”