High Court Karnataka High Court

T.M.Venkatesha Gowda vs Srinivasappa on 4 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
T.M.Venkatesha Gowda vs Srinivasappa on 4 December, 2009
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda


kJAN9;:%»

1

I22: “ma HEGH comm” :3?’ KARNATAKA AT 3Ars::;A:.m;}E«. *~V.V

amen THIS THE 4*” DAY or DECEMEER, ;z5§t59f –

BEFCIRE

“n-as HON’8LE MR. 3us’rI<:E ma. %;Ere'uTa:§m'.A }:o§;#I§::-.,A'L%I T;

REGULAR sscmia Axxigzzxg, Nof;%2és1/zktécsg.,_M

BEWNEEN:

T.M.venkatesha Gowda, ” J V
Sir). Late T.Munishami, .

Agad abcut S6 ye::.rs;. ‘

Rfa Thernahalsi 7ViEi;1g&, . ‘ Q

Kasaba Habiizj _ >
Srinivaspur TaV§.g.z:§<'–, 11;__ 3
Keiar Di$'E:';*i't'i.;~ _ _ '1; "fl:

% _ A:§PE%.§.A?%§%’
{By Sri. 8.Vee:jap_na S: ;£ss:;x;:§ates, Awe.)

“‘.S§*iVr:f::w.»*asa.;_x?;:sa,,’«._ “‘V ._

S350.__£3e£§dVés«._C’i:a”re£1_apm;
Aged abcut 5’4» years,
Rfa ‘:’%;ern£;%2a;E’§§ vifiagg

gE~<asabé §ié~b;li,'
S-rir§ivasa;;__a.::' Taiukg

if " "§§:z:§'ias» Qistréct.

RESPGNDE?s%”¥’

Th§s RSA §$ fiieci unéer Sectian 163 of CPC: against

judgement 8: decree dt.S,07.2€IO8 passed in
..§i.A.¥~£o.209,’2GO? on the file 9? the Presmérag Gfficer, ?a$t
Track Court-III, Ko¥ar, dismissing the appeal fiied against

the 3azdgmar:4: and fimzree flaked 1§.8.,20§? gassed in

trim wage has not apgrecéataé tha e*+..«*§§afice Er: ”

with {aw am %’:as ctamméttad a materéaiezfrsf an§’§§.¥$zg5Va§éE3§,

fr: View 9% which, the suit was é%7ro:%ie§€}Ta:s§§r–£2-$m§sséd.,v””~

However, the ieamed cou,nséi£_v:”s2§peéf’§?2§ ~f§T%v-.:dé&fénda’:fit
made szzbmisséorzs in sasppQVrt <:fHghe 'fiwingé and

csarmusion of the %ear§1éc¥ tr§él__VZu;d§'éL ';_§.fifihe impugned
judgment. V ' 'V

6. Coni§¥d£_v-} fiv§{‘gV”£*’?nejfiiizjai”‘c:§:::t€§z;ti’6ns and the record;

the appe¥”EéteTA. 3,udé:é”r§i5Vé<.* AfEVéV'v'Vfo%§ow§ng paints for

canséderéiiwz. V V _ _
§)_ '¥§£i:et'h;:2rV'v«.t%€a:_ Vpfiaintéff armies that the saséé
. *3che*§§ai§'e._p_r eper€y is puhéic read?
;""'L:'%';!§§'e:her we siaifitifi waves that %%e was aging
gcheduie pfeperty as roaé as an the
V ..5éf the suit?

ééé}. “~ fé§i§z%€5*§e:’ rim jzéégmazst sad marge 6? $95,949?
V .”V—-£’surt§s sustaénabie?
What arder’?

F After fe«~a§p+recia¥:§9n fif evidence with refarence ta

Viva; C§¥’§%§¥”£t§0i”£S, it was heid that, piaintiff has faéfed fig

grave that, suit grcperty was a pubfie: reaé area p%a§nt§ff %as

E:

/j.’

§

it :5 mafia flea?’ fiaatj, E’%§$?E§§%§ siateé %’:@:’a%:z ic= :”: 2
fiaasfia 5§§QW; afiaéé be atansmseé as an e}i$5’e$’é§FG:::%’;VfV é’?’%§;’:v.”‘_” H
§§§r2§m°% regarding tifie agsé
€e:”:ten%:§m”es 5% hath mrtées 5:23;:
tancemeé Csufi: Hz 333: ?a:t:§;«%'[:”*5.i;%: Afvért .dé.VAV%»fe~;;*é1%:§§%§”‘érgd

aenseqazefitéaé %”e§§efs, éf fiiggé.