High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri V Nagaraju vs Sri Munivenkatappa on 5 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri V Nagaraju vs Sri Munivenkatappa on 5 June, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Eh?" THE HIG3 CQQRE SF 

 

§g$a§ $335 $33 5"§ma£_&§_;BH£;"£§§§ *
ag?9a3 , _ A   1 'V ' _
gag gaxrgaa fir. Jvswggx fi;§:%ERJ$§£§SMmE
max? §ETE$IGR xe.13§3$£2§e? {$$§é§£%
BETWEEK: f A  n ' '  H H
v.fiagaraj§ 33¢ v@nkat§;a§a§§§;
$6 years, RfatAEolavanaha;1;? _

cmxmmm¢%mr§§,~_gv VA»V_f
Kolax fiiat._r_ §j 1~.« 1~ .»'A

§E?I?EQ§ER
{By Aavoaate5$;;,g§sfi§%gp§§ka$h;
Efifiz

1.

fimfiiv§n33%a§§a $§¢:*_
:1 5 7

__2. ¥en%étap§a %ffi_§afi§finéa§§a,

*, fiagérya

mi 4

f’E$ra§§mfia w£@”lata Eaahgggax

fiw K{¥,£mafi§a age vénkatgag
V fiajcrf}

‘ 5&1 age éfat Kalayafiahaéiif

[Randi Kabii, Chikkabailagur fig.
.jK¢;ax fiist. .. §fiSEQEfi$ET$

. {R§Vc¢ata $ri.8,R.§@e§ak a £$5t§, fa: gm:, 3 & é}
f{R~2 ,. servefié

wmmmua

a$%KA<&§ fia£&Az§§g=;*e'

"3

-69′.

§hx$ %zzt Eatitian :3 éiieé under afitéfgég é £3?

af ?he Canstitutxen af znfiiak ta quash”;:hé”»;§a§na&.
aréar on IgA.§ at Annexuré-3″ §atafi””33»5;§$S?,uin”;
§,S.No.169f£0G2 an the file” cf’«§;i,«.c3vi$**&E&gé. .
{Jx’§n.}, Cikkabaiapur anéaxcanfigqfiegtly “fi&R”alia%*_s

I3fi.§ for impiaaéing.

?kis ?etiti¢a is Va¢$;ng e$’.§¢;’f§$alfiminax§
hearing in B~Grau§ this éay, the. C9firt mafia fihé
faiiewingt _m”v_*» “‘– ‘

am: in :t§3§’ §%titi$n A§%$<-§ii@d the $uit in

e.s.ma.z59Xéasfi §§é~d§é;%%afii§g'éa fiaaiare the yiaint

scheénxé §r§§§ffiy a$*§"§9ini family yreyartg ad that
defeadntf$hall=§c% §§i§fié%@ the praperty in favcar sf

ay ether y@:gan;' 7:5 the suit §atitianer filed an

' a§§li$%t£an";a céfié fin xecaré as additioaal éfeaéagt

'é§"§§e g§¢fia§L that hi3 fiatkez has antereé inta an

agre¢§ént.§é §nrahase the afaxesaié §§o§er%§ aa§ gas

Vp__ h§an i§'§¢a$e$$ion of the same and that he amé his

-. ‘§g§hér_ hafi fiiafi a suit in e.s.ga.:31;§$ agaifiafi

W?é£kéiap§a§ Eaahagga and Kempanaa ta gnforfie thé

“a§§#eem@nt ef saga éatad 22.?.1§?6 and the aaid case :5

‘Jéismissed ffir nenw§r0secuti$na it is gigs the a&$® af

5V’

,3

the pe%itim§ar that he has filaé aa a@§lia飧&% £é§

resteratian of the suit unéer>Gxfi£r%S fig $?¢’éfi§flt§§A

same is pemfiing fiacisiaa. £&§téfiflin§*$§$tJp%é$§%;§§
and.&e£e§dants in the $§§€a ifi’ ¢f§ex ‘%% ée§r%u§. Eée
rights sf the pe:g,tia:ze;_:;} ‘:-..:;az;g :&::;€fe ¢ lithe snité
Therafsre, he filed §#”a§§l§¢%££§%”§§ came §§ xacard
as adfiitionai figfenaant to §§g£és§ %§§ caga $in¢@ ha
is an interé$§g§ §3r$§§ fii¥ %e§§ac% ef the suit
yrapezty. €%§%fi§%§§ic%§i%§*§f $§é petitianes fias haam
rejecte§ E? fithéfiaéafiifij béié§; fihezefiaxaf gresant

p&titi$fi ;é,file§§ °~'”

2» §a¢i§g fiea§§”£fié’aa§n3el fgz 33% yeiiiicnez, fifiis

ci=?:s23;x*§«.. .2123 that the suit filed, hy the

§et§tisE§§_§§&_§@en d$smi$sed far mGaa§zss§cui;sn §§§

. “.g thafi §étifii¢% far rastaratiea is 5aid is be §%fi§ifi§,

w__R3iiaf 3% the suit is far fisciaraiian ta éafiiaza it ag

“« a fiéfifit family pragezty ané tfiat flag game C&fififit ha

\ ‘éei¢ in fafiaur af t§ird garty’ if tha §iai§ti§§ ha$

“f§§é§ tha suit ta éaclaxa it ag a jgint famiiy

épraperty anéa if aizaady tharg $5 ax agraamat ix

W.