Karnataka High Court
I M Somashekar vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2008
IN THE man coum or xanuarma, ' nmmn rms ms. 14% my or July: " nsrorml" % % V V was HOIPBLE mmsfim 3.31LL£.1=iaa REGULAR sscoxn mun 1eo.11';~.z.%..:"@o7 .5--- * V' BETWEEN: 1.
I.M.Somasheka.r, ' Aged about 38 years. f
2. I.M.Srim'vas, 1 Aged about 36 years. R[o.Ka:rmapura:Villagc; _ . Baskal Post, Mudi;{crt:M'I'aiuk; --- « Chilanagalusr Dist1'i€:t--_5'}"?'CD 1- " .. AFPELLANTS Both are was ' .
(By SIl.fi.K. Adifcx s,M.Ran:1 Bhatfia Steepada I z ' ..... ..
mm:
..u-an-mmq-um...
: 1Jx§'3tate of'I{§irnataka_ .' Rap. by .(':<;£_v(°:tfnI{;c11t of 2 ' ~ V:'§'hési1dar, 1 ' ~ .A Block Dcvclapmmt Owccr, biufiigcm.
[4/_
4. The Range Forest Oficesr, Mudigcm.
5. Village Panchayath, Makonahalli, Rep. by its Secretary, Makonahalli Village Panchayat, Makonahaili.
6. The Village Accountant, Makonahalli Village, Mudigerc Taluk.
7. Smt.RathI1amn1a,, W/o.Shekara, _ .
Aged about 32 yc3in, ~._ ~ R/o.Moodasasi villagag ' ' MakO 'vVV ____ _' «.,:::;;. '. » Mudigere Taziuk. _ 1 "
3. Manjaiah, % S/o.Ju}aiah, " V % aged about -3.0 yeaI"'?~._ < "Ah .
sr%s--Pasama:«hs&% Ageé1L_fab;A)ut .
S/o.Udda"iah,~~._ -V 4'
-. _.T'_1'.*§.gc'c1_about 3/_c>,N':'.ngaiah,
- "Agéd aiaout 50 years. V ' A 'Duggaiah, "~ S]'b.Meka;iah, about 50 years.
I3. Manjaiah, Father's name is not given In the appeal memo. V b Aged about 55 years.
14. Honnaiah, S/0.Rajgajah, Aged about 45 years.
15. Nanjaiah, S/o.Bha.dra:iah, Agcd about 45 years. R8 to 15 are all ' Village, Bas1:a;"Pogt-,' Mgidiggré 'I'ai11_< "V 3/ 0-K€I1¢1l¢ §°Wi19é:::v.. .. . _ Aged about 3s:;r¢ar:é;, ' _ R[o.Ka;{1na\puxa"Vi11agc, .. ' Baskal Post, Mudigeixz
16.
17. K.T.M's;1e'c;ow. _;.c1a7,; S] o.'ij'h..é1mman1ia Qowda, '~ Agcxjabnut years; -------- LR/.o.Kr)15gc§;du viflage, Baskag P9s=:,.f 'Myiciigcm Taluk.
18. Vczhan' S / otfianixakx zfti, Aged abdut 70 years, * "R/o.Kan_nfipura Village, A Mutiigcre Taluk, " T Post, * Cfijxilcmagalur District. .. RESPONIENTS
-no.-
5/% No.13 measums about 34 acres. Ex.P-3 is the -gjlssgd in favour of the father of the appellants, . the father of the appellants had_Jp1n_f¢hasé€i" " " 'V land in P.R.No.250. Absolutcfiy users recerd to show that the and enjoyment of the;__suit sphsfilflé-..,pro#§é1ty, Tflerefoxe, in my considered the appeilate Court he'1_d_A %aVpspénants have failed to of the suit schedule propefty. -. 'cbnsidereci view, there is no merit in " substantial question of Law _ for consi:1¢1fgti.on in this appeal and hence it is I 'x_V X 7.V_>;'s_<;'§rT:c$1'di11gly, it is dismissed. Sd/-» Judge Bss.
Gsm.