Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

N Lingappa S/O Late Chikka Ningaiah vs Smt H Rukmini on 12 February, 2013

Author: N.Ananda

Bench: N. Ananda

                               1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013

                            BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA

           WRIT PETITION No.1896/2012 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

N LINGAPPA, 65 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKA NINGAIAH
R/O NO.2713, 2ND CROSS,
K.G.KOPPAL, MYSORE-570 001.                 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADV.)

AND :

SMT H RUKMINI, 41 YEARS
W/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA
R/O NO.2/1, 8TH CROSS,
1ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE-560 009.                             ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI PRASANNA DESHPANDE, ADV.)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT
ANNEXURE-C & ETC.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The learned trial judge has accepted the certified copy of unregistered sale deed as secondary evidence. 2

2. The learned trial judge has completely ignored the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to adduce secondary evidence in conformity with provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

3. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE Np/-