Q
x
§
¢
2
K
E
H.
O
i-
3
3
$
E)
$
9
Q
E
¢
Z
#
§
H:
0
§
Q
0
U
3
Q
I
E
'E
2
3
§
Ila
0
5
3
@
W
2
Q
E
§
'§
2
HE
E
Eu
@
Im-
fl
3.
L} " ..
3 ,,
E
5
§
§
fl
Z
X
§
Sm
§
E
3
Q
.3
E
3
P'
L' ~ ' BANGALORE 550053
In THE HIGH cwm or-* Kaammm AT
mmra Tarts 'mm 251%: my 01? my "
BEFORE
'I'H.'E H(}N'l3I.E '
BETWEEN
1 VVENKATACHAM;
s/0 VEIIKATAPPA _SE"I'-'mi'
AGED ABOU'I' 57«:§*.aRs, "
R10
%
« %...PE'lTl'IO§ER
(BY 5% ADV.)
AND
-..-u.u.- ' :_
X xvm
% %.%T%w;c:.ka.931m Gowm
- X .a;ama:mj¢::::*r 2:? arms,
%%R1o%rw.a, smo.m1/5
L.G.RAMAn1m LAYOU'l'
mamas,
RESRDHDENT'
_ {-B-'1§'SImI RAJAGOPALA HAlDU,A1'.'N.)
THIS CR'? I$ FREE} UISJ15 OF CFC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENTAND DEGREE DT..15.4-.05 PASSED RI
0.S.NO.5579I94 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL.
$2
3
0
U
3
Q
$
3
E
2
as
5
3
5
3
9
Q
E
2
E
3
:-
§
:5:
§
3
E
3
O
U
i
3
I
5
5
5
Kim
0
E
3
9
§
3
§
$-
§ _
x
§
Vasgw.
Q' .
§
Q
Q
E
X
ms CRP Is FILED U,rs.115 01? cm AGAIIIST
TI-IE Junehmm AND DEGREE DT.15.4.05 PASSED III
c>.s.zm.5579;94 ox 'rm mm: 05' THE XIV' mm.
cm CML JUDGE, nanaanm (ccH~2s3,
DISBHSSING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION. ..
BAY, THE COURT MADE THE ._
'11-11s 12.12.? cozmw on F0}? %
oR9Efi 3"
ma revision pet1cio§;%lFjiedi1~emn%%% get
j.;d@t of the mg' max by
the revision patitioner came to
be dismissed, ' V? -
mm
'
31.; 'in: of tin learned Counsel fiar the
is that suit; was am by am pemmer
5 ofthe Specific mm' Act, 1953, pa-aymg'
a dmuna the mpondmtderenaam to put
% 5 peu1:iam~1p1asmaa'iu pmmm caf the suit
The suit praperty 's a house oomtrunted in
» aim N::.6 of survey I'Io.101[5 of my village,
E»
. J'
:; :.:
§
§
§
Q
Z
%
§
LL
0
1*
fl
3
G
U
33
£9;
3
S
E
2
III
§
II;
0
E
3
G
U
I
.9;
I
E
':2'
2
Q
§
In
0
'£2
3
Q
U
3
E
X
.3
¢
2
3
§
I8.
G .
§ ..
1: ~.
6'.
I3
£
Q
X
E
'E
Z
3
E
lie
3
E
3
§
.}
3
§
ofaale dated 1.10.1991, said to have been by
petitioner. me trial Court did not pa-opm~1y
the evnifi on record and --' e\*a:iencai' 2 'V
the respondent as n.w.1 L
vwna::x:e’ with thus utami mm
by the said cierenaanmhe failed to
appmcéam 9 PTOPEI’
perspwflve WW and
an regard to
the mponaem is
went inm the quenfinn
of ma ‘ of mm dues mt come mm
mtm under Section 5 of thc Specific
L that the plaitztifi prayad in the suit
1 _ back in poeaasainn as it. is the case of
_ that in the year 1994, um dasfiendnm. bmke
K leak of the suit prapeerty and foamy magma
nm@ the learned camai xu£a¢’rLI1g’ to the
1 above aqseots a.rxidocummts producedby the p!a5:1tifl’
in par’EH::u]artr:Exs.P1 tn P6, argund that 121%
aa-
Q
E
3
<
§
§
inf:
O
P’
3
5
U
3
Q
5
3
‘E
2
3
§
3
§
3
S
f
E
X
E
Q
2
%
§
Iéa
G
E
3
3
U
3
Q
I
E
‘E
K
$
E
55-:
9 .
I”
§–
u-3 ‘
G’.
U
3
§
3
§
E
Q
E
§
§
Ex
3
Q
3
§
J
§
E
to the defenziant particularly D.W.1 as rqarda
bdrg put in poawsuism. punuant m the “géf
nah in the year 1991 and mondxy an
having been dispaasaased 2
Masai open the lock of .
partkmlarly in me o:%n1§gAder¢;:¢e’ by the
defisndant that was obtained
that to the trial Caurt four
men without gning fixrther
A petition is allowed. Tmjudflxt cef
_ com for man wmidemtion and in the light
o:f §1:ha nbsavntims made herein «how, the um Court
ahafi appreciate the evidence and flnamaaxy, paxfiea
nmyahobegivenantxpparttuzitytnplasczafinxther
Q}
s…I
6 Im-
eviderlce and to cxwziaa-%ine the
u&, flan trial Court 313311 proceed ta4j£ii§fi§a§
afthe mattm in aeoordw with law 4′
three xtxanths from the: date of mwipt. of ‘
Gram ; , _ .. ..
YE
:2; §¢.2zuS. we Egon mam: 5_§<zmS_ we Snow moi S.§¢zm§ ".0 $33 _.§x §<.E§§ 3,y_.§%u.§§ §§«§§ 3 $33 mg