Smt Menasamma W/O Late Sri. Krishnappa vs Sri Venkatappa S/O Late Dyaverappa on 18 November, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Menasamma W/O Late Sri. Krishnappa vs Sri Venkatappa S/O Late Dyaverappa on 18 November, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 V A ResidE:t1tS"--Of 'K.ithar1du1' village,
  'Sugatur"HO'o1i, Koiar Taluk and
A ..:DixStTrif.,:.&t -- 533 1.01. : ..AP§'ELLANTS

 Shri. ROOpeSh.R and Shri. Sandeep MK and Shri. S.C.
T  ~Chi_kkanaji, Advocates)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN(?j4A'i;{;);R._}3
DATED THIS THE 18"" DAY OF NOVEMBE.R'%'2O«1S[   _
BEFORE 1 _  V  T
THE I~ZON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAP§§.. 
REGULAR SECOND A:>RE.AL  5; 
BETWEEN:    %i  % %}

1. Smt. Menasamma __  
W/O Late Sri,._K:*iSh_nEppa;.. '
Aged ab0ut«7«7_ 'yea1'S;, V'

Srnt. M'une-ikkafhiéaa @iS'j;\!I'i1n_iVyak}e;a,~.-- '

W/O  " . __  

Sizhce deceased  he'r._{x:ga}__ 

RepreSentati'véS..AA4"   -. ' '

2. Sri.   s 
 about  years,
  "    years,

Alﬁpejiants I  35:: are the

 



 c  Thivsyiapvpeial-._is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil

 0 it _Office; Fl7..C-iI;'K0lar, dismissing the appeal against the judgment
 and decree 'dated 14.06.2000 passed in O.S.N0.474/1989 on the
 iigpfinle cf. the Additional Civil §udge (Jr.Dn), Kolar.

V  r_l,<:I.iivered the following: «

i\)

AND:

Sri. Venkatappa,

S/0 1.,-ate Dyaverappa

Aged about 62 years,

Resident of Dinnur Harohalli village, 
Masti Hobli, Malur Taluk,

Kolar District ---- 533 .101.

Since dead by legal representativesfa.

Sri. Venkateshappa

S/0 Late Venkatappa,

Aged about 50 years, A
R/0 Dinnu1'Har0ha.llpi villag V p g V  .
Masti Hobli, Maggy      
Kolar District?  l'0'iI,__ p      V '

(ame ndedi as"ip'e--r:  dated 0  V  ii
19.3.2010)         ...RESPONDENT

(By Shri. H.Vi.__Ha,rish,_ _P1'f)celt__1t1re;Kl90$'-"against the judgment and decree dated

02.ilAl,.2007.pas'Ised in R.A.N0..l32/2000 on the file of the Presiding ii This appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court is/_:' judgment and decree for partition and further pF()pe1'tit?¢SVlih§iiVing been included in the suit schedule, the trial Court . care addressed the several contentions and the matei1'i'al'.'d0cLintents produced and has found as a fact that it<hereiWias ir1o_viipartistioi_r:'1~andp separate possession and acc<)rding.l_y"~has dec»r_eed_thel'san'1.e. The lower appellate Court haVin_g affi'ri'rIei§1"tlic_ﬂﬁndiiing's the trial Court, the present appeal is filed. I

3. The;~'fol«l.oi,ving ques~tions:"a-ife.. to be raised as substantial questionss that l"€4C'1iI1i.l:Vl"€ iconsiderationp judgments and decrees passedlb--yL..--~below contrary to the rnate1=ia1'veVidence'on record are sustainable in .:'pi.('bV)Whether the judgments and decrees Courts below granting decree for without considering that there was " severance of joint family and status pursuant to AA registered settlement deed Exhibit D56 are sustainable in law'?

(c)Whether the judgments and decrees.«_W"'« passed by the Courts below contrary provisions relating to iawsfof "partition. area it sustained in law?

(d)Any other questions.._o'f.._lpaw that.,_ma;:-3 arise for consideratio.n":V'h_i1leiheareihgp the appeal on mer_its"?'lf'_V

4. ____ f the partition claimed by the appellants' liatsllbejenttnegaited and the trial Court having found as a fact that the suit ought Vtofbe decreed as prayed for, there is no questioﬁ'vof__.1aw that arises for consideration. The ..fi.n'di,ngs of fact with reference to the material docu_:fnents.ithatit' were set up by the appellant and that the it'"'-__t'appel1ants__having suffered a finding on that basis could not claim . ithat»-any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the i " -manner as set forth in the memorandum of appeal.

5. Accordingly, no case is made out and the rejected. 3 V' 3 jTuda% %[?_h '*'a1b/--.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court