High Court Karnataka High Court

Yerappa vs Munireddy on 3 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Yerappa vs Munireddy on 3 December, 2010
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
 ,:'~AND:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KAIRNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE SR" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010 . 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAKT£1Axn::T_SAi;A:: «

REGULAR FIRST Appmm No.946/2:009» . (§5g;& ':1éQsS:\:1-..e '  , J :'

BETWEEN:

1.

Yerappa,
Age: 65 years,
S / o.1ate Rarnaiah,

2. Raghav Reddy.

Age: 60 years, _ _
S/olate Ramaiah; ‘

3. Pandu Reddy” —

@ Amareridra_Redd.3t,..VV_ =
Age: 55 years; ‘ ‘ _ V
S/o.1ate Ramaiah,

All are r/o,H0n.Agas.<aan'dra'
Bvegur HQ_'o'}§_, VV V
i:'5'a.ngVa1OVreL"S0L'1th "I"al_uk. …APPELLANTS

(By 'Sm Redcly. Adv.)

.x ~ – « ~. ' aM'1:1ni Red'dy_'A,t'

_ _ ' ' 60 'years,
'-8 / Q. late Shamanna.

2. Chinnamma.

Age: 75 years.

W/ o.1aie Shamanna,

3. Rathnamma @ Papamma,
Age: 70 years.

W/0.1ate Muniswamy Reddy,

4. Krishnappa.

Age: 75 years.

S / o.lai.e Yerappa,

R} to 4 are r/olvlongasandra v_i11age’,”‘ve«:
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore Souih Taluk.

5. Srmivasa Reddy, «
Dead, by L.Rs. _ ‘

(a) Mu.nirathnamII;a_.:@

65 years, 5 ~

W/0.1ate H.Sri11jVa.s -1.VReE1d3r,’V’?’:f 7

[b]Saraswat1ii, _ __
W/ 0.Char1d 1%as}:xekar_ Redc¥y’,’ ” ”
Age: 4″? years.”». ~_
D/0.1a'{1e’ H._Sriniva sa”Redciy,

{<2}
'44.ye.ar*:3."~. " _
Sflo.l.ateTEi,E}1fihi\}aVsa Reddy.

VR–5{a) 10*-[__c) are f/0.}–Iollgasalldra
Village. 8″” M3411, 5″ Cross,
” ” -« iM:.11§eshwara. B’adava’ne.

» ..Ba1jgaI0jI’e_j68.

» {d).e.M{1~;én;;,
_W/__c3.JagedeeSh.N.
” ‘<._fJ/o.}ate I"€I.Srim'vasa Raddy.

‘ V objections.

i:.r1\r*’ ”

Age: 29 years.

Munekolalu village,
Bangalore.

6. Lakshmakka,
W/o.Nathappa,
Age: T35 years,
R/o.No.70, 4*” Cross,
Nanjundaredoly Colony,
Muregeshpalya,
Airport Road, I

Bangalore. T * . .

This R.F.A is filed under Seotion 96″ of thenh

Judgment es: Decree cit.25.02.2009 passed :n”Q.’s;:\:te.7*Q34/2003
on the file of the XXXVIII Add}. Cit.yV_CiV’i]__Jt;_dge, Bangalore, partly
decreeing the suit for part1ti013*a_nd _s’epara_tepossessioh.”

This appeal Corning ‘day, the Court
delivered the followingzu = = Y

in spite offigravnttrig Athbreeweeks time as a last chance, the

:app_e11an’té«:.h:aj/’e r1ot do’11e…_t1he needful.

dismissed for r1on–comp1ia11ce of office

{‘
5d/-§
Tudgé