Karnataka High Court
T R Ziaulla S/O Lt Abdul Rahaman vs Noor Jahan W/O Lt Abdul Rashid on 9 March, 2011
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
CO EEL NEES OE BORN OTARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH frst IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 9% DAY OF MARCH 2011... - THE HOWELE MR. JUeCE I. NARAYANA SWAMY ae REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO, 27 OF 2010 a 5/0 LATE ABDUL RAHAWA! AEE: ie w/o LATE MOHD. HUSeART AGE: MAJOR ae &. BB. PAs AnRED DD .. ; 5/0 LATE: MONE, HUSAIN AGE: MAJOR . ; ALL ARE R/O ALASETSIKEREPALYA PADMAPRIAVA ACHOOL ROAD os, SHATHINAGAR, TUMEUB-S?S ic EP. BY GPA HOLDER MOHD. RAVATH. S/O LATE BAMERD & ARE: 58 YEA, eS me t1*) ARAL! . SIRA GATE, TU + APPELLAN " 'k IBY eure BALINA E., ADDY. POR SELLS. EVEN RATA BEDISY, abyy- i. SEYNOOR JAHAN W/O LATE ABDUL RASHID i] SUN OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CMTE NRE WE RARMATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAIA HIGH & RA No.280/ 2006 7 Drenting 'Officer, Feet Track Couert-If _Turnleur, 'disomasing the appeal filed against the j judgr R/O P. sae SOLORY TUMRUR - 572 101 SRLT H.LATSIEe 2/O LATE HAYATH SAR cs AGE: MAJOR | R/O CHIKKAVEERAIAHNAPALYA - SIRA GATES, TUMEUR-879 161 MAIPETE, 'QUBBT-572 4+. SLT. RAH 1B P wh o LATHEEP % E. ae S/o LATE T rR. KAZEEMEEAN AGE: SAYEZARS -- ~ R/O E.R. EXTENSION | TURE ~ 572 PG] . RESPONDENTS usa. PRIME : LAW ABST. » ADVE, FOR CZ RS} "This RSA is filed under section fCPC againat "he judgment and deores dated 17. 509 passed itt S [ol Ne.1S0/2004! on the Me of the 100 o 20 decree dated 15.9.2004 Passed in O.5.No, 101/ 1907 ott the. file of the 1 Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dr.) & JMFC, Fg sae d ear. ae RES RRB BBP Ua we ee ss STARA HIGH COU Tees EUMETSAT GP RARNATAICA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF BARI : 7 884 of Mob H fuse: : me 'originally belonged to f 'plaints further prove that the 1# defend. plamtfs have succe: EE Saat t coming on for admission this day, che urt made the following ; nd The concurrent judgment and, order Peseel be. beth the Courts are of jenged in this ap peal by the plemiifis. 2. The suit was filed by the * plaintiff bor ¢ and seperate poed HOSS IOT: de By: producing Ex. Pl ~ Gererel Power of Attormay and Ex, P2 - Genes ion. mem Seb wae the ~ Sab whe hed four sone, The T Court Baw franisnd two iseues viz, (1) Whether the =
tiff fiove that the suit schedule prot | Sab arel (0) Whether the nt and Ged to the suit echedule DMO perhes under their personal lew ari they are in joint 4 \
- Under the cicure tere TOES NEE MOEN AER EARNS, FEI WASH WP RINALARA HIG COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT pessessien ari erjoyment of the same as alleges at pare 2 of the pleint. Heth these questions have "bean. - atewere fio the Exa.Pl and P2 produced by the psi Rave been puted by the defereiants on the ground shat Ex. Pi GPA hes not been exec ed by the Persone whose y homed thes cee: | Tae croee-etamination oF naires are PW-1 hes been. relerved ty the. Teal | Court where it deposed that ie th od di riot, come to the Court since rin his own he was i end he os revidir ei in Shanthin Neuse tnt 1 ie i not aware a which crose and which . about the cress and number im which she reaides. 2, the Court below dis heleved * the version of pleintifis im reepect of Bas Pl and Po. 'Fhe euit 6 partition was dismissed on the the grourel thet if imam Sab waa the owner, the same waa not proved py / ® memes CEST ht RCE GP RARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU Rabe 4 Be z ; ; ; . " 14. noe ol - © ga tee plegitilfis. The same was cnauenged in ROA, No.280/ 2006 which aleo came to be dismissed. oe
3. When the disputed questions have beer answered in the negative, thes Court do net fn any ground to interfere, Since no substantial qucation of law arises for consideration, appesl & dwrmissed,