Karnataka High Court
Pradeep S/O Baswanappa Phatate vs Anil S/O Baswanappa Phatate on 15 October, 2009
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
eS < 2 GU LB! =
CIRCUIT BENC oa 3 8 x 2 fr ta ir ii ra 10056, oo z caer ae :
oy] iL, ADY
2 88 Pee Bad Il. ANIL S/O BA Sw VANAPPA PHATATR, / AGE MAJOR, OCC. HOTLIE ZR, 2 AGE } MA JOR, OCC. | at USES TA, R ie Hi. NO. 10- 164, AN veND | NACH fy R, SRAHM i SERVICE, KING AT 4 Ne INIDIE® me de (BY SR] SANGAMESH G PATIL, ADV., FOR RI; _ 1, 4-6 ARE TREATED AS LR's OF R38; _ MICE TO R2 & 5 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) role toate under Articles 226 & Te. Ce "On ast tution OF Ifidia, praying. to quash Fa mpupned order dt. 6.9. 2009 | by C civil Judge (Sr. St.) at. Gulbarga on OS Ne 3 in this case the petiti ener has challenged the at Anmexzure - 0 cated Lf. 09, 200 }5 whereby the court below has rejected permission to the PW 4 to identify and mark the :
fone Ab nayakurmar, the attesting witness of the W Ul- EXP.) dated 2.4. 7908, ceiencanis in the said suit. For tie sake- or convenience parties are referred.fto -by "them ~ 3 respective rankings before the: ivie os
3. The plain? Med the. . ifore 'said suit, for declaration that he is the owner OF the "su t schedule property, for poss sion of thes Said oreperty and for certain ot be er. reliefs . itis the case of the plaintiff by Was purcne that the so:
is father has bequeathed rn ee ° spade erre es _ lowes mceye gen en wb ey es , Sey es ples kes the: seaki ooroperty by executing a Wil dat Rate denied his title to the said property and refused to. hand over possession of the s seme, he has filed the. aioresaid s "
4. The contesting Ig g defen dants _1 to S-have filed = the written statement: deny ing i the plein? averments, fi is their case that Baswa wh apy pa P hatate nas not executed any Will &s cor atend ed "Gy the plaintisr int the Jn the Basie ef the pleadings, the court z..
below ha As fremect rele yet issues, The plaintiff filed lead secorwiary evidence in'so far as the Will is concerned. [Tt Was oye Ble 7 eeert Fie. ges Preuvies es Se eee eee ee
-No.3 and he is having a notarised xerox a at Pe vbueal 2 a ~ =O a3 Gun Fuld \wwt ae fis pes ene eee peel é , aoa tingy invent 'pal nn ths 'hel : . Sor te iis : . 3 Ah My spnod q . oa .f Js . ro a ayia yc a) on noo a ma - Spa vga oe von 'ae Fal pom nA pom Yeast pane eal hog Ge pata oad, ahmed ny ay fk dad Sorel 2 syne "ae 'eet ree i a yn aN nig Fal agen EA oan h Bhat 'pee poled * at pe Frog ae shoot foo poset 29 peo eal pr git pi od fy om es Joa aa " Saag dav . a, Het ap sua ef y good ae ey 4 sos ' 7 sd os eed a ~ Sonal 4 fio naan «rom tee : we coca) jee yet re = ! Aha Lo 3.200 La Mab é 26, oon placec € inate ir apd ex SPLS P rere:
ELDLL-
Bede.
pla etvee ae ye rg 'Ooperty Ine ile, "aces! of the plaintiff out of the money sent by him to his - fether while he was working ¢ at Sandi Ag a i That, is why his father executed F EX.PLL Wi 4 beg eathing the e suit schedule property in ais favour. He nwever, when EX.P. L was exect ited Oy Gt Lis i lather? ne we ; as working at Saudi Arebie. 'There tO wwe the' W: a is. in the custody of the 3 defer;
Hh who is non é other than his mother. A notarised' KeTOx copy Of the WH) was sent to the sn the 7 basis of the Said Will he has filed a POoSSession of the sult i it was unnecessary for seeking permission of the ee | Tee Dae ce ge on calionel evidence in the low has allowed the Seid order. Even otherwise the Plaintiff has issued notice ge seyedeses erties, 26 Af ein i " vets PE lay oy ups UNGEeP Section 66 of the Eviderice Act calling upoTl | Dlainttf? has not executed any Will. as co rience d by him. Be that as it may. The plaintiff nas let in eVIIETICe 25 ty why be 2 Oe of EX.P.1. In other words, he- has laid the JOP. pr oduct oni Of s secondary evidence. He Was pe rinitte ed to-mark the. notarised yverox copy of evidence which is ender S sub: vsecllons 2 and 3 of Section . hy 7 i a 2 ra, e Sey cea ean mdi ian. Evi dence Act. The said doecumer#sit is Therefore, if is of, eiTa the 7 . co eo "See cet byes MOQUUTE TO De oroved by of the Evidence Act. pet yen yuyy teh ena, PPh py fesn bees bee es » are mo miore. Therefore ure plaintiff PRAS examined siit of the attesting i3 jet an Mat Fama sedi Mua a "eae a z Front cine eal ded a sro Bp nog Pad Bee Ner cost