C V Anjinappa vs Sri Jayaraj on 12 June, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

C V Anjinappa vs Sri Jayaraj on 12 June, 2009

Bench: Ravi Malimath

 _ 3. C31 Loi<esh'     

'     Shivanna, Advocate)

  Sri Jayaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL'd§f{§'~.:"'vv.,

DATED THIS "me 12"' DAY OF JUNE, 2985   

BEFORE

THE HC}N'8i._E MR.JL}STICE Rm: r~1;&LIMm*a» = " 

war: Pmnow N0. 1Q55ES"§F' §2Q§8(GM§CPCv3

BETWEEN:

1. C vAnji"§§3P'?%*5T%L":.      
S/0 late;Vej_=z.kata.ppa_ j.',,,%  _ _  .3
Aged abe2.;;t»..5:';{years,"-]' .. " '

2. cvsrias§ék2$:kkjk%% %

S/0 i'ate.\/en    .
Aged a=!3ou: S2_ye'a.r$;-~...L,

. A SIC ii.'a:te"--\fer:ka't'apf3a
» VJ-'x_gec¥u 'atm_ut 50 years,

* AH' R/afjrifsmadihaiii Village and Post,
sZ3_pp,v~i'v'!iSi.i< Dairy, Bangamre East Taluk,
BasJga.§0re Bistrict - 560 066.

* "  PETITIONERS



V22? 6?" th£é'C<:::zstitutié%i of India praying to SET ASIDE
"r_he_r:rde.rv"d3¥:.ed.. 19.7.2008 passed by the Pri. Civil

  I.A;NO.'3 a'ndj--_4.'vide Annexure-A.

' W " " 'e:§$u.rt{nac€e 'aha foHowing:'-

:hIlf3MWl

8. Srﬁ Narayanaswamy
S/9 Byrappa
Aged about 60 years,

9. Sri Narasimhamurtim}
S/0 Byrappa   
Aged about 5? years, : '

10. Sri Srinivas
S/0 Byrappa  _ 
Aged abaut 55 years; 

M are R/at   _  '
Immadihaﬁi3/i-Hagia, I 
¥<.R.Pu:'ari'.} H9'b.Ei,.,  1  
Bangahjre ,Ea§t"*Vfa!i:--!j<;,   M.
Bang§io¥'~e '** 550 {)166.'"7 ~ __ 

 T    RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. in vgjayak?s;£§«§g;g%é:*é;jkT%<sc:wda, Advocate f'orR1-R7) " k "Writ x?'&tV%:*;v§_onA:is ﬂied under articles 226 and Judge ($.r;~!)\:'r1'3-Qsangalare Rurai District made on %?e£iticn coming on for 'orders thés day, the i45§.§t:ie:i,_?:i'_)_{§' needless te mention that the AV"i<es;ﬁVe'e<ieeteéizieferidents are at iiberty to contend te theAe§htrer§¥ii.'i_.V_iiriowever, the right ciairried by the it2,,_i3etitieiieiis':.terinet be conciudec: at this stage. In View

-_d%i:he""e-mendment sought for, the petitioners appears -5- said property and the corresponding defendants--«.__is wfioiiy unnecessary. it i

6. On hearing bath the counseis, considered view that the impugneeih be set aside and the appiicetiens'Abevraiieweii foiiowing reasons:- V i V

1) The suit is separate possession. It isithe cese~:..;jf that the said prepare;"'ie:'~§iiei§i: 31§ﬁ§:'ritra%hiiy property. Irrespectiizeeii.Ztiie,;_<;eete'ﬁtAiee.si'eVireiisied, prime facie it wouid aippeer ef the petitioners requires te°?,3_Ve by the triai Court whiie \&\...------~ to have a sembiance 9:' a right so far as the prspérty is concerned. Hence, I deem it just and that the appiication fer amendment.,._ :&nf:!Cffthejb 1 ccmsequentiat appiication far impiséadffienﬁ'.¥pé'_a'!§:6»~;e:§'.'V,_. For the aforesaid re'a23§ns, fine +::V;f::i.g_e:*"~--. "t:i'ai:éd 19-7-2008 vide .,,I_.A.Nos.III 8:

IV in O.S.Na.19$?--,/,_..?O0:?"'"E;w,i'::he.._§g§.}'ksé.§.:'P};incipa£ Civii Judge District, £5 hereby v$:[email protected]. IV ﬂied by the petitionérg The pay costs of' Rs.1,€)O0/--- to "'defen:§5'an_t§ ts fFV"'by««--*:'§*ie next date 0? hearing. \z's'ri:i:v.j:;>'éi:it:i:(':r§ is disposed eff accardingly. Sd/-

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court