Karnataka High Court
Sri Karethimmaiah @ Thimmaiah vs Sri H Muddahanumaiah on 27 March, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
RSA No. 1667 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1667 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KARETHIMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRs
1(a) SMT. THIMMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
D/O LATE KARETHIMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH
1(b) SRI. H.K.NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE KARETHIMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH
1(c) SRI. H.K.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE KARETHIMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH
1(d) SMT. NARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O LATE KARETHIMMAIAH @ THIMMAIAH
Digitally signed by LRs 1(a), 1(b) & 1(d) ARE R/O
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S HANUMENAHALLI, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI,
Location: High Court of KORATAGERE TALUK,
Karnataka TUMKUR DISTRICT.
LR NO.1(c) R/AT NO.525,
JAIBHUVANESHWARINAGARA,
NANDINI LAYOUT POST,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. N.G. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
RSA No. 1667 of 2008
AND:
SRI. H. MUDDAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O SRI. THIPPEHANUMAIAH,
R/O HANUMANAHALLI,
HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.04.2008 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.470/2004 (OLD NO.26/2000) ON THE FILE OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER. FAST TRACK COURT-V, TUMKUR, ALLOWING
THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 05.01.2000 PASSED IN O.S.NO.39/1990 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & J.M.F.C., KORATAGERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 09.04.2008 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court -V, Tumkur, in R.A.no.470/2004 and judgment and decree dated 05.01.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Koratagere, in O.S.no.39/1990, this appeal is filed.
2. Appellant herein was plaintiff, while respondent herein was defendant. O.S.no.39/1990 was filed seeking for declaration of plaintiff as owner of plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining defendant from disturbing plaintiff's peaceful possession over plaint schedule property. -3- RSA No. 1667 of 2008
3. In plaint, it was stated that, plaint schedule property namely, land bearing Sy.no.88/14, measuring 36 guntas situated at Holavanahalli, Koratagere Taluk, (referred to as 'suit property' for short) originally belonged to one Naraseeyappa son of Obanna. Said Naraseeyappa, bequeathed suit property to plaintiff under Will dated 16.03.1974, and died about 10 years prior to suit. As per Will which was last testament, plaintiff succeeded to suit property was in possession. It was stated that plaintiff was also known as Thimmaiah.
4. It was further stated that defendant, who was having no manner of right, title or interest in suit property denied plaintiff's title and was disturbing plaintiff's possession giving rise to cause of action for filing suit on 04.10.1989.
5. Upon service of suit summons, defendant filed written statement on 13.09.1990 denying plaint averments and contending that alleged Will was false, fraudulent and concocted. It was also asserted that at time of alleged Will, testator was suffering from serious illness and mental imbalance and not in disposing state of mind. It was denied -4- RSA No. 1667 of 2008 that plaintiff was also called as 'Thimmaiah', as also his possession over suit property. It was contended that no cause of action accrued for filing suit.
6. It was specifically asserted that about 22 years earlier Naraseeyappa sold suit property to Thimmaiah son of Kariyappa. Since then, said Thimmaiah was in possession. Said Thimmaiah in turn sold suit property to defendant under registered sale deed and since then, defendant was in possession of suit property. It was further specifically stated that plaintiff and his brothers had executed a Karar on stamp paper of Rs.5/- denomination admitting above facts. It was also stated that upon death of Naraseeyappa, obsequies were performed out of funds given by Thimmaiah and record of rights ('RoRs' for short) clearly reflected continuous possession of Thimmaiah and plaintiff was never in possession. Therefore, plaintiffs and his brothers had executed Karar on 01.01.1988.
7. Alternatively, defendant asserted that himself and his predecessor in title were in continuous, open and hostile possession over suit property and therefore perfected title by adverse possession.
-5-RSA No. 1667 of 2008
8. Subsequently, as per Court order dated 22.11.1999, plaintiff amended plaint, to add assertion that Naraseeyappa was his maternal uncle, remained unmarried and resided with plaintiff till his last breath. It was further stated that plaintiff had looked after him and performed ceremonies of his death.
9. Thereafter defendant filed additional written statement denying plaintiff's assertions by way of amendment.
10. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following issues and additional issue:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is also called as Thimmaiah?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that one Naraseeyappa S/o Obanna bequeathed the suit schedule property to him under the will dated 16.03.1974?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the testator Naraseeyappa was in a sound disposing state of mind and in good health?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property?
5. Whether the defendant proves that the original owner Naraseeyappa sold the suit property in favour of one Thimmaiah S/o Kasiyappa about 22 years back?-6- RSA No. 1667 of 2008
6. Whether the defendant further proves that since from the said sale the Thimmaiah was in possession of the suit schedule property?
7. Whether the defendant proves that he has purchased the suit schedule property from Thimmaiah under a registered sale deed and continued in the possession?
8. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff and his brother has executed an agreement on a stamp paper of Rs.5/- giving all the details.
9. Whether the defendant and Thimmaiah have been perfected their title to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession?
10. What order?
Additional Issue
1. Whether plaintiff proves his relationship with deceased Naraseeyappa as inserted by amendment?
11. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself and two other witnesses as PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 7. In rebuttal, defendant also examined himself and two other witnesses as DWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.D.1 to 8.
12. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1 to 4 and addl. issue no.1 in affirmative, issues no.5 to 9 in negative and issue no.10 by decreeing suit as prayed. -7- RSA No. 1667 of 2008
13. Aggrieved thereby, defendant preferred R.A.no.470/2004 on several grounds. It was contended that judgment and decree passed by trial Court was based on erroneous findings on issues. Trial Court erred in holding that plaintiff's name was Thimmaiah and also Karethimmaiah and Ex.P.1 was a genuine document. It was further contended that plaintiff had failed to establish Ex.P.1 - Will as per provisions of Indian Succession Act, as attestor examined did not state about attestation. Fact that plaintiff did not claim any right in terms of alleged Will for thirteen years after death of testator even for mutating his name in record of rights was suspicious circumstance ignored by trial Court. Trial Court erred in casting burden of disproving Will upon defendant. It also erred in holding that defendant had indirectly admitted plaintiff's relation with testator. It also erred in concluding that name in column no.12(2) of RoR was that of defendant's vendor and it decreed suit without considering defendant's case.
14. Based on contentions urged, first appellant Court framed following:
Points:
"1. Whether the defendant / appellant has proved that the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2000 in O.S.No.39/1990 on -8- RSA No. 1667 of 2008 the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) Koratagere, is perverse and bad in law, and as such the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal, resulting into suit of the plaintiff/respondent for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property, is being dismissed, as prayed for?
2. What order?"
15. On consideration, it answered point no.1 in affirmative and point no.2 by allowing appeal, setting aside judgment and decree passed by trial Court and dismissing plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved by same, plaintiff is in appeal.
16. Sri N.G. Sreedhar, learned counsel for plaintiff- appellant submitted that, plaintiff filed suit for declaration of his title based on Ex.P.1 - unregistered Will and for permanent injunction. To establish his case, plaintiff had examined himself and got marked Will, two RoRs, order passed by Assistant Commissioner and land revenue paid receipts as Exs.P.1 to 7. He had also examined Sri.Venkataswamaiah as PW.2, who was attestor of Ex.P.1 to establish Will and Nagaraju as PW.3 to establish that he was called as Thimmaiah. PW.3 had stated that testator was maternal uncle of plaintiff and Will was written by Sri. V. Ramaiah and signed by them. Therefore there -9- RSA No. 1667 of 2008 was sufficient compliance with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
17. It was contended that Will was prepared 25 years prior to deposition which would explain minor discrepancies, which was ignored by first appellate Court while reversing finding on Will. It was submitted that after execution of Will on 16.03.1974, testator - Naraseeyappa died on 06.05.1977 and even defendant admitted that suit property originally belonged to Naraseeyappa.
18. It was submitted that trial Court had examined evidence on record and held Will was proved, first appellate Court on same material came to different conclusion, without assigning specific reasons on findings of trial Court as erroneous or perverse. It was submitted that discrepancies noted were not material in facts and circumstances of case and plaintiff had proved relation with testator and his assertion that he had performed obsequies of testator was not denied. Further, Ex.P.5 - land revenue receipt of year 1972, much prior to date of execution of Will mentioned name of appellant as Karethimmaiah. It was also urged that when defendant had
- 10 -
RSA No. 1667 of 2008failed to examine his vendor Thimmaiah, adverse inference was required to be drawn against him.
19. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon decision in case of M.B. Ramesh (Dead) by LRs. Vs. K.M. Veeraje Urs (Dead) by LRs. and Ors.1, for proposition that Courts would not be justified in disbelieving Will on ground of minor discrepancies. And also ratio in Girja Datt Singh Vs. Gangotri Datt Singh2; Gnambal Ammal Vs. T Raju Ayyar & Ors.3, and High Court of Bombay in case of Bandopanth Sitaram Bapat & Ors. Vs. Sankar Sitaram Bapat & Ors.4, for principles regarding weighing of evidence on proof of Will and attestation. Reliance was also placed on Bheek Chand & Ors. B Parbhuj5, for proposition that in case of illiterate attestor to identify Will executed by an illiterate person not being able to identify a document on which he affixed signature, to contend that as attester in instant case had affixed his thumb mark, he was illiterate. Hence, identification of Will was sufficient. On above grounds, learned 1 (2013) 7 SCC 490 2 AIR 1955 SC 346 3 AIR 1951 SC 103 4 AIR 1996 Bom. 56 5 AIR 1963 Raj. 84
- 11 -
RSA No. 1667 of 2008counsel sought for allowing appeal by answering substantial question of law in favour of plaintiff.
20. On other hand, Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for defendant submitted that in a suit for declaration of title on basis of Will, entire burden would be on plaintiff and strict proof was required. Plaintiff cannot rely on weakness of defendant's case. It was submitted that defendant was purchaser of suit property under registered sale deed at Ex.D.1 and was in possession. It was submitted that Will under which plaintiff claimed to have acquired right did not see light of day for substantial amount of time. No effort was made by plaintiff to get his name entered in RoRs on basis of Will even after death of testator. It was also contended that appearance of 'Thimmaiah' in column no.12(2) of RoR was consistent with case of defendant. Absence of plaintiff's name in RoR was unbridgeable gap in plaintiff's claim.
21. It was pointed out that as per plaintiff, Ex.P.1- Will was executed on 16.03.1974 and testator died on 06.05.1977. In meanwhile, defendant purchased suit property under Ex.D.1 - sale deed dated 30.03.1989 and suit was filed thereafter, in which plaintiff was not granted temporary
- 12 -
RSA No. 1667 of 2008injunction. It was also contended that plaint was bereft of material particulars and plaintiff cannot be permitted to take advantage of vague pleadings by adding explanation subsequently. It was submitted that plaintiff filed application for amendment of plaint after 09 years of filing of suit, to plead his relation with testator. It was further submitted that Ex.P.1 - Will was written on plain paper and unregistered would be contrary plaintiff's case that testator planned bequeathal and informed scribe and attesting witnesses to be present. Even admission by PW.2 that he was employed as coolie by scribe and Will was drafted in garden, would belie well thought out intention on part of testator to bequeath his properties to plaintiff.
22. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Bharpur Singh & Ors. Vs. Shamsher Singh6, it was submitted that in case Will was shrouded in suspicion, overall facts and circumstances have to be taken into account and only if same appealed to conscience of Court, Will could be held proved. Relying upon decision in case of Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam7, it was submitted that 6 (2009) 3 SCC 687, 7 AIR 2003 SC 761
- 13 -
RSA No. 1667 of 2008requirement of proof of attestation was mandatory and its compliance was to be examined strictly. And on decision in K Laxmanan Vs. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors.,8 for proposition that failure of testator to state particulars about number of his signatures on Will would be suspicious circumstances sufficient to overturn Will.
23. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and decree and records.
24. Above appeal was admitted on 20.9.2013 to consider following substantial question of law:
"When the Trial court granted a decree in favour of the appellant holding that the Ex.P1 - Will is attested and executed and that there are no suspicious circumstances, whether the First Appellant Court was justified in reversing the said finding and in doing so, did not assign consistent and cogent reasons to overcome the findings of the Trial Court and thereby committed an error and illegality in the impugned judgment and decree?"
25. While passing impugned judgment and decree trial Court took note of deposition of plaintiff, wherein it was stated that one Ramaiah wrote Will, Venkataswamaiah and Nagappa signed as witnesses. Venkataswamaiah was examined as PW.2. It took note of deposition of PW.2 that he knew 8 AIR 2000 SC 951
- 14 -
RSA No. 1667 of 2008testator, who was brother of plaintiff's mother and permanent resident of Hanumenahalli and resided with plaintiffs.
26. PW.2 stated that at instance of Naraseeyappa - testator Will was written by Ramaiah, who was former Chairman of Jaipura village. He also stated that at that time Nagappa was present. PW.2 however stated that Will was written on bond paper which was brought by Naraseeyappa. In cross-examination, it was elicited that on date of execution of Will he had been to garden land of Ramaiah for coolie work. It also took note of elicitation that he was unable to say how many LTMs were put by scribe. Trial Court took note of fact that defendant has not acquired suit property as heirs of Naraseeyappa, as purchasers. In that light, as defendant was not rival party insofar as Will, taking note of deposition of PW.1, proceeded to answered issues nos.2 and 3 in affirmative.
27. First appellate Court, however, weighed discrepancies in deposition of PW.2 insofar as Will being drawn on stamp paper, his inability to state at how many places testator had affixed his thumb impression and at how many places scribe had signed. Insofar as deposition of PW3 also only to extent of stating about relationship between plaintiff and
- 15 -
RSA No. 1667 of 2008testator to hold that discrepancies in deposition of PW.2 were without proper explanation and did not satisfy requirement of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. It also took note of fact that plaintiff was not sole legal heir of Naraseeyappa and that he had other siblings, who were excluded from bequeathal. Said circumstance was also considered as suspicious circumstance and on overall consideration, it held that Will as not proved and reversed judgment and decree passed by trial Court.
28. For answering substantial question of law framed, I have perused Ex.P.1 - Will and deposition of parties regarding it's execution carefully. Same revealed that neither signature of testator nor signature of attestors were identified and marked. Since, suit is for declaration of title based on Will, plaintiff would be required to prove signature of testator on Will in presence of two attestors by examining atleast one of them.
29. As per plaintiff, Ex.P.1 bears signature of testator, two attestors and scribe. But requirement of law is about proof of signature of testator and attestors. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kashibai W/O Lachiram & Anr. vs
- 16 -
RSA No. 1667 of 2008Parwatibai W/O Lachiram & Ors.9, , emphasized importance of attestation and execution:
"10. This brings us to the question of the will alleged to have been executed by deceased Lachiram in favour of his grand-son Purshottam, the defendant No. 3. Section 68 of Evidence Act relates to the proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. Admittedly, a Deed of will is one of such documents which necessarily require by law to be attested. Section 68 of the Evidence Act contemplates that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. A reading of Section 68 will show that "attestation" and "execution" are two different acts one following the other. There can be no valid execution of a document which under the law is required to be attested without the proof of its due attestation and if due attestation is also not proved, the fact of execution is of no avail. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 also lays down certain rules with regard to the execution of unprivileged wills. Clause (C) of Section 63 provides that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each one of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses should sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.9
(1995) 6 SCC 213
- 17 -RSA No. 1667 of 2008
11. Here we may also take note of the definition of the expression "attested" as contained in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as under:-
"attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."
Having regard to the afore-mentioned definition an attesting witness is a person who in the presence of an executant of a document puts his signature or mark after he has either seen the executant himself or someone on direction of the executant has put his signature or affixed his mark on the document so required to be attested or after he has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark or the signature or mark of such other person. In the present case the trial Court after a close scrutiny and analysis of the evidence of the defendant No. 1, Smt. Parvati Bai, Vir Bhadra. Sheikh Nabi. Shivraj and Gyanoba Patil who are witnesses to the will recorded the finding that none of them deposed that Lachiram had signed the said will before them and they had attested it. None of them except Sheikh Nabi even deposed as to when the talk about the execution of will was held. The witness Sheikh Nabi, however, deposed that the talk about the will also took place at the time of the talk about the adoption. But this witness too did not depose that deceased Lachiram had signed the alleged will in his
- 18 -
RSA No. 1667 of 2008presence. In the absence of such evidence it is difficult to accept that the execution of the alleged will was proved in accordance with law as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. It may be true as observed by the High Court that law does not emphasis that the witness must use the language of the Section to prove the requisite merits thereof but it is also not permissible to assume something which is required by law to be specifically proved. The High Court simply assumed that Lachiram must have put his signature on the will Deed in the presence of the attesting witness Sheikh Nabi simply because the Deed of Adoption is admitted by the witness to have been executed on the same day. The High Court committed a serious error in making the observations that broad parameters of Nabi's evidence would show that Lachiram executed the will in his presence, that he signed the will being part of the execution of the testament and this evidence in its correct background would go to show that what was required under Section 63 has been carried out in the execution of the will. With respect to the High Court we may say that these findings of the High Court are clearly based on assumption and surmises and, totally against the weight of the evidence on record. The trial Court on a close and thorough analysis of the entire evidence came to a proper conclusion that the will has not been proved in accordance with law which finding has been further affirmed by the lower appellate Court after an independent reappraisal of entire evidence with which we find ourselves in agreement as there was hardly any scope or a valid reason for the High Court to interfere with."
(emphasis supplied)
- 19 -
RSA No. 1667 of 2008
30. High Court of Madras in Govindan Chettiar (Died) v. Akilandam alias Seethalakshmi and 24 others10 has observed that attestor not speaking about affixture of signature by testator would be incomplete compliance of requirement of law.
"28. I have already said that the attesting witnesses in this case have not identified the signature of the deceased, nor the attestation by them. They only give a general statement about the procedure of attestation. When the signatures of the testator and the attestors are not identified, it cannot be said that the Will is properly proved. In 1996-II-M.L.J. 596 (Suguna Bai v. Muniammal @ Dhanalakshmi and others ), I had occasion to consider a similar question. In paragraph 18 of the judgment, I have held thus:-
'Even though D.W. 5 speaks that he is an attestor when he was examined, I do not find that the Will is shown to him and the signatures of the various attestors or the testator are identified by him. It is seen that Ex. B-8 was marked through D.W. 3, the third defendant, wherein the Court noted 'subject to proof'. I do not find that any step has been taken by the third defendant (appellant) to have the same proved in accordance with law, i.e., when attestation to a Will is sought to be proved, naturally, the witness must say that the document contains either the thumb impression or signature of the attestor, and that he has also signed in token of the attestation. He must identify the signature as seen in the document..' In this case, the Will is marked through D.W. 1 who is the propounder. The Will is not even shown to DW. 2 or D.W.3. Along 10 1997 SCC OnLine Mad. 209
- 20 -RSA No. 1667 of 2008
with the same, the statement in the written statement that the deceased was senile even from 1961 also gains importance. Being business partners of the appellant, they were interested in him."
(emphasis supplied)
31. From above ratio, it would be clear that identification of signature of executant as well as his own by attestor would be a fundamental requirement of proof of attestation and execution. General statement about execution and attestation would fall short of compliance with requirement of law regarding proof of execution and attestation. Said requirement would be regardless of fact that suit was for declaration of title on basis of Will. Burden in this regard would always be on propounder and once Will is denied or disputed weakness of defence would not come to rescue of propounder.
32. Insofar as attendant suspicious circumstances, it is seen that initially plaintiff had not pleaded about his relation with testator. There is no explanation about plaintiff not making any application to revenue authorities for mutation of his name for more than 12 long years after death of testator. There is also no explanation in Will about reason for exclusion of other siblings of plaintiff from bequeathal. Even deposition of PW.2 that Will was drawn on stamp paper purchased by
- 21 -
RSA No. 1667 of 2008Naraseeyappa, when Ex.P.1 was drawn on plain paper, requires to be considered in light of other factors. Indeed time gap after execution/attestation upto deposition is contended. But, same ought to have been clarified by witness during re-examination than in arguments by counsel. Hence, even said factor would be a material discrepancy. In view of above and on overall consideration, conclusion of first appellate Court being with reference to evidence on record by assigning due reasons, same would not call for interference.
33. In view of conclusion about failure of plaintiff to establish due execution and attestation, judgments relied upon by learned counsel for appellant regarding manner of appreciation of suspicious circumstances would not come to aid of appellant. Hence, substantial question of law is answered by holding that first appellate Court was justified in reversing findings of trial Court and it has not committed any error or illegality.
34. Consequently, following:
ORDER i. Appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
- 22 -RSA No. 1667 of 2008
ii. Judgment and decree dated 09.04.2008 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Tumkur, in R.A.no.470/2004 by setting aside judgment and decree dated *05.01.2000 passed IN O.S.NO.39/1990 Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Koratagere is confirmed.
iii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg* * Corrected vide Chamber order date 14.06.2023