Siddalingaiah S/O Late Ningaiah vs H K Kariappa S/O Karigowda on 30 October, 2008

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Siddalingaiah S/O Late Ningaiah vs H K Kariappa S/O Karigowda on 30 October, 2008

Mar Sane TR US USTTYSTTT AMPA aAT!S 3 (dy Sent BV VIDYULATHA, ADV, }j car SBC AGAINST THE ONT t& DECREE. DES ;8.2006 PASSED IN : : OF THE CIVIL JUDGE HE APPEAL AND AND DECREE O.72/1988 ON THE COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS OLLOWING :

JU DGOMERT appeals by the defemlant before the if aggrieved by the suit of the jor cancellation of the adoption deed dated 22.848 and fer declaration of plaintis title ma mut properties, beim decreed and the lower a * om ee ea RO TENET MIME OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C FS Se PLEIN aaitne by ais STIS SID TPR . Theas, coricuirsent OW @7e cfled in quest tio On Be that her" hush ress leant ainh ape. = the, EOTES setts ioned above ig the wile of 1 son ater tee plaintifl tal the properties Deld by her in erties ari following the death of the "aitinued to enjoy his nad become: issueless sy Fhe Sk ate, ahe jolted her bo him. It is her : " 3 wt 7 orother Kerigcercta aul tome eae & being 2 adop ne ae aay "TES -werecnant . . SLUL arose fa the 1e# ee BE TO ET SE MEMEBERS ENED MINE OT VARUNAALARA Mott CUOUKE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ Es w Gefendant 16. the appellant herein filed a BLL t O.S.No.64/88 secking permanent injuriction ageing?

his sor. Karkeppe in TeEpect | ar the sult Schedule property are] if was in the said su tythat the defendant baer mryg the. adopted s gan of seeming to know of firesesrt-suit for the

2 thet no adoption had he defe endant j in the earher laken place as cont edie IS peremia played fraud on $0 eng Bam pee pate c Ho EEaVe gol a doacurment The plaintif? hed no feridant i adoption and Lewis" the delendant alee had no qualification for , the basis of the @loresaid avermenis in the pleint, it ls contended that the cause of action for the iduly 1988 when the plaintiff "e CQiie T show about the defendant having pleaded 70 OTN PUNVET CGLIKE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C dey 2) Ot Sere ¢ z ey ph hong th ae Cs ate de Mi UG.NG.007 88 eri therefore the audit be not dis pute defendant that fsllowing the. death of te te 3 Lo PLLS eee eee was adopted by ir. 1948 and the adoption 3 5 es ti cee dete oS 4 ah Bead ff te at jut e # oh 'i Pel my a registered document got, It ie bie further case aimiit hed gifted ineme 5 anc 7 a T@vous of the defendant OF tie plainti® arci therefore the suit filed by of the plaintiif be tavern i. the written i.

PT WwW WE ARIA CUM WP RAKRNALARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C = MCC WEL ijlat owner of of Ohikkamima, Bo 1 wae. . hewing inherited a 'and as far as the en ention taken ia that the outcome luerce eed the to detest thee claim: of the 8, a8 fio locus riginally filed by kkammna.

Many 88 SIEVE Bales could be seen from the sei pages 20 and 21 ard both perties led a aller appreciating the cs accepted the case of the aw wee ee HOMNMARA FIRST COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C proved by the me and secondly the Will was. and Dread on the aacd fiedings. properties ceime tog- Wad Dred sig Pipe megit pee ee TERE BLELE £82 nk Thal, ae nf andthe adoption 3 + OGG BAR CADMNELIX arid the Twas declared as the endant wee aleo The ef thee trial court.

Shamker G.Bhat, learned BLY. Vidyulatha , rel peruged the for the appellanta at the ef 2 at 7 28 & Rlosiagsine, Re at en ero geebed # 2 i thet tree courte below ought to heave as meaving been barred the adepthon deed tae suet on the gre NT WR SAT ONARINATANAA PUGET OWIVKE UP RARNALARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ Ae So SCR ge ot ceee te x guy ice me mel ols i . Gatec 25.8 1958 is & registered document which. has fo ae ae fy bey re es th ri

-D4 and P-89, the pled innit fly sete . an bg ee EE, es [Arre, cre leenged Mee SF a Lew guacignSir, una a Fhe oh Ue wns Lo. atenmhy BC 2A ari, thereiore, after A lagec of neariy. 40 saclopiion deed is & if z fb 7:

i & ee 7 it is ehet ee the plaintift to Ber hopelessly barred by at the ep sallant has taken . -

g berréd , liyritation mi hm rerterithy, wi place of the "Gis uterttion" has beer on gomg through the s Which ig at paragraph- rites statement, one mar: easily discern that Z a?

DY [enitation Kas beer toe 4 s ey the ceferiierit, herefore, the submission EOMLits below ought to have dismissed * bemyg barred by limitation eover, ever eiore itie ceurt im the second 77 neem PUNY COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ g i TED Der for 43 limitation. :

mh hp ioe oe ae '7 wh Lege p evideros placed by

8 rTegerce the ade ption feces having feu eve tbe CREST) COASECI Le d the said deed, which : gtered Ldocument, the " sect C1 Ap omg oo Tha Foe 8 at peat Le im praliuced at Bx.t-4, being .a s ae the defendaertt sgyeeeig byelopesr pry iid ee eee opty ays. below c coul mot have ca i deed. te tis conection, by referring i wea hy the trial court, # is suberstted « thet ~ the e trial court did met accept the ty on the ground of Chikkamma being wt obtained the consent of the t tset @ rindu widew 12 also on the erous caumet adept a child aed thees reasona of the trial WIC? ae eafliroved bv the lower appellate court, 2 * 4 SWS tEed in daw ist the face of the decision of erieg m7 AJR, 1963 S.C. 185 and decision of the Apex Court reported in O51, Therefore, the entire reasoning t for met accepting the adoption deed is a ein ME MARINATARA MGM COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH |

-- + ee eee er cee RE og ae at the Avex Court amd, ax such, rt is Hable 2 Supreme Court.

€ 2b + wh ead 4 conitercded by the besa mec, conn wel for = Puget tinge Peg Tee ae Lad rier red i in relying ot the wie the evidence ve rye peu Luimeterices ehaich the evidence of the plaintiffs = witnesses and it will go to is @ decument brought up by the orive the defendant of the henefits derived ub a ree ti tis regard, the PoWe.] are 4 pond Lk the learnt counsel . Hi this regard is that, cowhere in the plaint is there an fa ine effect that the sult properties came to e plai fapoa, under the will SO NT NE RAIN Funtort COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C' CIMBBSIiTS.. Tae évidenee necessary pleadings could not have "beer. a On the very gacne ) coricerred, there ip no it aryl, there 'fore, the trial court could not hawe put the buirden on the defendant 6.6.1 988, tex tne gil, deed Lu faveus we the de the year LO48, of the wil Ex.P-1, it is mention me the wil thet nin adoption iteelf "gos8 fo shee that the will wa (up by the plaintiff to depre. the delen oF ine Bit propertics ee ae a a pee ee ee ee . .

Pursiant to te edopiion deed. Even as regards the url caritiel Be sustained eyhdeween At *i PITRE Oo cut bee the leaonert CUP OUYnS Taree To ne eae rmars, tere NMR WE RRRINATARA FIGHT COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH | Baan iet the appellants will render the ExeCLLION of the will suspicious.

id, Ae fer as the requirement ae f prowing the wil em 4% a ar, very oy ate Seat capo gt oo = agi pee We Herned counsel referred te the TeLevanie aecnicn of the Indu Su uiccession Act to. pom wut that not been / 8c cordance with the provigionsa of Section G2 "iiiar. Succession Act. aa & ee ns ade te 5 ad foresa au » tat lorward, the Sly, sadt af ¢ hoe au of the ic be ariewered hau, the learned courmel for the 4 Uuat the will has been proved by ~ the plea and, i being a regiztered document, the i hae ied the evidence by examining the acribe as . POW.S ed one of the attesting witmesses PoW.3 and, ak f these witiesses, it cannot be said that the 2S IANS FIRGTY COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK® HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ct AS Tar as there bein ie, EE? pleadings ag regerds Uae will is concerned, the submission toade i ES "y re a St pe Egy hd Pa = 4 4g Bi Waly praver or the giaintiit lor declaration of hit tithe to the suit properties itaell j iraplies that the plein :

suit proper es which be ot under nee the will is upheld, the ¢ = on of going af ihe tater wi i TEL a7ise and ga fret two substaritiel questions of law is concerned, the &, prior te cerning into force Adepuon & Mamterance Act, 1956 aryl, stiied in taking the view nivelid 2: the absence of aént ofaapindas, Aa prior iorce of the afcresaid Act, the in forcé as regards adoption, the satifed In mot accepting the Vila régerd, the learned counsel eerigin peseages from th IVER VT RARIAIARA ON CVUKE UP RARNAIARA MIM COUR! OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C (thet the conser of the s apindas * was:

ve, rely ing © ott arvatio né contained in havik aie Base rele arvizyg te the Court J ep vted "VALLE. 1963 S.C. *s ssonmel argued 'that the judgment of rt as afirmed iy the lower appellate court at a a ne. pls cugile fore. cup interferetice ered aiviesecd ever or the narrow the case of the plaintiff, aru be duerriisserd. Keepitg inl wiew the aforesaid contentions put , it ia time reise for re Saree ene ee Tages ae adoption deed. From 7s ernemines THNGTT COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ci "2 Whether the oeurte below have -

esmmrdttecdl ar error dy not considering the | iss ef lmitetion «when the vlam land? i. = ag bor cancellatior: of tie adepticn deed ected mm 4 @ tae executed on 25.8, 13487 nl CW Fhether 0 the dower "courts Reve ommmmuttec ar error m2 he ding the. adoption cused. to be uovelic on the. ground that the agreert o of sapinda is Feet talker? - Whether the... CULT below have committed ax er me Par. a decrseing the suit on the hasig ofa wil, dat <a 16.8. LBS"

iid inte : cone iter 'euon the fret question of law CMS. och "rt is required to answer the 'earmed course! for the i 2 Ol Pemord, it i estabbehed thet the defendant os " i E Ege coe Ea) raed ia & oe ing i Ps Brita e got ae a ep A ary sath ey fo poo! os Py i *, bo :

coe ) ot ig guaeced or: Ex.T+4, which is aleo Ex.P- BS i¢., the adagtion deed, The said decument is dated 2 er itis a reggjatere: document. The uit is LEME S Nee ME OE EP LOA! VP RARINAIAKA FHGOH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Or KARNATAKA HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢€ 4am, EL Begs as a. £ 4 plaintlil for cancellation of the aaid deed.

The period of Limitation m three years for ceeding. TE oun asctt decliora . « YA Zee ous ers . a 4 3. * Stage aes . -- , ve a me ae oe 218 a0 acdinitved fact that the suit wae filed in the Pt, year 1O88. slmost after 48; years af the adopt tier. deed. But, tt crucial question is aa to the point of time at wich plan? Chikkearrone | became aware of the rh deed. fhe sand taken y 'the giant ia that alte becanoe: aware of thse adoptic ie 2 only mi the year 1988 Wine Lhe tele ndint ted Me suit, .5.No0, 63/ 1988, 4 . of the present suit of tiation does rot arise. has mot beerm eble to show that the deed ER] Wes not executed on 235.8, 1 948. Lhe very olaunl averment ms to the effect that Une thumb mark cf the plaintiff appears to Olalmed orl a stamp paper arc ther the faa registered. In order to preve that the A plaintid wae not aware of the adoption deed being coe ee ee TENE MIRE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C gut Here is rio eviden Los or rt and Chika aid younger brother. the arsence | of Chikkarima entering b va, 'e deny the . deed) exer rated xz % ao deed ltmell | a. 'been es duced oy the DG @ fact knowrl to the parties to the are imereiore, the plaivtiffs case that she pa ey ars ERAS gg Rees wf the ecnmse aWwere of the wae executed Le. 23.8.1948, is accepted, then, MeKinG ceclaration that the adeption is not the pleamituT ane & needs to be cancelled kk NEN THNGTY COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C aad BS a AS. not taker, CUrichernr get EL = ad sed ttt at ee s Ee " Pe CU TA ee AF TRL C2) GEC LS 4 S Chat the adoption consert of the 'teeing the defendant in the pleadings that the 1Ee Sty smectic avermernt in ae a to the effect that the sedepton of the gyyahecl on ef Cyikkerminea not the sapiicdlas.

o 2 : B ie cs = "" : ro oH r La . Leek pod ao oF Bo im q Baan Led et a a eet - oy = " ° a ° : % : :

ag OR Be a © "= &§ , og GG. 7. sg F es g :

os sy ed mt vad . age . - : . : a 2 goat : ;

Bow Be - » oH - 8 S 8 #F @ OY wd i.e : wag Add - a "| a en x ot Ps ae Pa € 3 €).'@ Doe e #& 8 & | os @U EF 6 & eat ry z np fos a i aa e wd oH s 8 £4 og ay a2 ge . | » 8 Pou : . 6, Poe & et oe ais; : we a di ip 2 a o a 3 ; i 'be peed ose r it en s a. a 4 oH aa nt | es a shen & Ss ead ont = ra aa find "bet a ad pelt ned ey - is vy! "a z és 'i vee ae ved i int "a as S eo ca ue a a fo Gy an . ay peed ve at i pe Hout: 7 e ud Ny : oe e a 8. a oe ol so - ~ a . z" = & --

es i a es ee fad §sng .

a i us a om « rf " kes ty 5 fs os or uy .

. et Font a" s vs ma a "=a ae due! as et ' ay * a jela ; 4 Mra at . "~ ' ae " i = r Fea dent go san ey os ag. a Ae, ear tas : = aa "

ha Last

- a3 ae be ea A 4 Ss é : © hed y a0 ee phy -- tig a ty aa spat Me > HOIH WAIVLIVNAY JO LUNOD H9IK WIVIVNAVA dO LaNOD HOIK WIVIVNAWS JO 1403 HO ere, on wan 2ECNELS WANE EB em ee oe ee ee We NARITA THGHT COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK® HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ci & ign, 2 44 gr Ep 5s 'ny ORS Bp thee Ey Paty oe ve Wirough the conmutente of the learned in the two volumes referred to by the 3 Wifeel for the meapondent, # is also meacessory con which the | s cOWure into lores of .¢€ ae : + Lg . ; - -- in . ; t. & " ie are VADSE WOGLIPL Mae Done re Lom: japend, her 29 atricthy of the authority ut in the absence of any by her busbarel, her = her husband, of ine sepircdas.

ay ge eRe ae Tio POwer lO BaOpr i Figs BE.

only & protection against Mos riot, thereiore, rghit to rity of e husbwerci with the te oth pore es fe Be BGODUOT ia ar act of the wm « 4 = af the sapirulaa is only thet of adyisers. Time Agex Court, in the course of the abov Te olis servation, algo referred to the decision of tf 8 Judicial Committee:

itt Balueu Gurulingaswemy - . Ve. 7 . Balusu Rarieéia ke hme rruria. BER Ieee: Mad: 298, 'at-page 408, arui the said observations are? to , the fe) liowing effect:

"0... HE the cangent sf the husband's obiain sed, the wilow's do-extetisive with that of * her hustwred) It is, therefore, clear that a ind widew in. making an adoption ame ercisea: a power which she alene can , Exercise, thous o her oompeterncy is 2 as by other lunitationa which we shall cons sider rele ister atege. Whether ahe GES. 'author Wet by ber lushermd to take a megent of the sapirulas, Wiaike ar: adontion, or te ae is not Pret dL ate, they de, ay are ott Sy " a ee Boece and uricontroale bound fo make art acoptic 1 Grd she canyriot 4s s né oomipelled to do go......., &

------ TT EMRE ME RARINAIARA MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ 8 EERIE THOT CGUIRE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C ayer : ty priies, £ ps4 See Vs ge & foo F 3 ¢ #?, iv. & lauer decision in the csse of GAppaswem! ¥ Leong ersage TS oes. ee 5 ae epesenind rses 2 owe ye Chettiar Vs. K Soarangapant Chettiar, reported mm: A dR: lL, ihe Apex Court considered "the. Law - elati ag 'to .

cittersrre hetweer the old wi the one under the. 1956 Act and hae gbeervec thu has hecome Ss - to 9 changed (Apel Court.dealt with the aparice Act, toptic on and 1985, "sora anc caughters ore treated a (thes matter of suceesasion. mi stetus is recognised in the The Hindu Act, 1G56, cove a6 well ae girls. Formerly a women could adopt only to her oe wine mast melaet & Sushward but now ahe can adeot fr herself. Zs eg ' 3 * ¥ i abet | | ef a & : hy ed ton wee ro as | erg} te a a + fog : re . a -_ # co - i ie) "a cl 5 c fl 3 Es By Re este) ay 2 § § A & E es % a a _, i Ln co ha ts, oe Bu ae fap E a ne a o rey 'e ; Mm] By a aq 5 yy Po ; iy oD , "Sl a speed 4 & ; ; = ots ey 3 a Pal ante pa " . im abe "t ete a : 3 = a gl} ® si a _ B t - oe 7 ad ee a " -

ea a a tad hn C "a ED. i ay ged Bt . ao : Ey eo i oa ops . om ¢ ded Boy Sod P| gs . Cl. eo a . a pe fey Ey es a - fe sol bt wd - aH ey i ey Bek Fou ' ny | a7 2 5 a, Bob CA a :

mf i "G i a 'el Sod i Legend my a a a .

Seika.

ie coe Sundae 3 HOIH WIVIVNaEVH dO LUNOD HOIK WIVIVNYV JO LYNOD HOI WIVIYNYYY 40 INO Hon evereAD an ninn WAIL: WANN TA UA AA ti 0 NRA FIROTY COLERT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ct Té ine Act came into hae tp be taleer mote a@coourit Hhe...chalged noes particularly disappearance of t the } basis Or. ment of gapinda's assent on the ground of : of the kinernen by 7 ine apacity of women o haw: disappeared véears society has ee ns Sek ao. aforesaid lew laid down by the the requirement of & eseernt, | am of the view that in the case on Heid alas, the trial court could not Have held the i aoniunt of sapida's ormert been potobtainedd. The ebove deciion of the rely appheabie to the case on hand ET MN TE MOUS STATE eR? WE RRA MT CLUUKI OF KAKNATAKA ¢iGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C as F gets Phe dates + oy teen € at ty 6 eh ob ge tt "eg = ' aS, i Ue Usieanl, ogse alee, the adoption deed ia of the VeRr Loki, whereas thee Act came unite forme im 1GS8. |. : 2. 3 FS Bee "act i. * i 2 om ae "

il Rolding that (ae adewtion -- leed is invalid merely on the ground of the comeent of oe OO LIGA SERPS CL Ei POLE OF EEE. Coe ri iyklas beige not taken As. such, the. second of laws elec answered in the at a a 2% « ed ~y oF 7 though tye pleimtif- lel the gnill saiel to heave been Jan his favour oy Chikkermmna, the very fact that hardly within a rgtith of -s the suit in ©O.5.No. OS / 1 ORS, arc CATT * SSTL @tiyorie i adoption and hed not given her ae Pedr bh dy tock +l & $2 a te b avi / aTyorme, 1 is clear, that the aakl will came "ihe existence onl te take away the effect of the S aeatencl wee Faw bunesle Gee $3 sit ne ais executed a8 lar haces in the yaar 1948. TT Tees FHINOTY COUKT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ct ed 3 ats If Eng ae Be ty Fa i a6 B "

oa SEOOTICI, The DPiainiiiy base not averred in' -her had bequeathed the suit properties inh urkder 4 Wilk. AS auch, fae vibe SORT rom 'the :

in regard to the will being in existence atid 8 cquieathed the suit oro perties in favour - of the i: BE ahh ee ee te pe ry a - he, 8 San COLL PERCE, Lis ena ous ta have taker nite account this crewing steric ale 80 ag vart fromm the other cireusr ferred to by the learned counsel ee fer thoes cumstances are, P.W-4 @ not being spoken comsistently hy PW.2, the soribe, and P.W.3, an | | - es | ts are. yet another circumstances ne cic riot obtain attestation for he. aig gnature of Chikkammmea in the will oa, thie date of gaan of the will on 166.1988, long after the mis tence, taelf ought to have I SM OWT ARI WE? GIR WP NARINAIARA MIG COUKF OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C: eiveri piss ic wing gurrouried by suapicious CEC tas Scufapbilecet BEY the above ag pects.

"Or rex cord aryd-ao Lat Sree.

UHerefore, when the : =e specific plea Will in favour of herein, the trual Tiare to the oral nad iscked necessary ge 2 z OG SUSTEITICC && 7 perverse arkl contrary to the record. Therefore, thee aiupeteriial question of law raked aiotis 48 regards "y or consideration are foo Teemu PMOL CORKI OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ci Pa im coming to the view that interference is ag A Sega oe 4 2 gh : ¥.

the judgments of the courte. below, TP. HaVe slso Laker mete of the parameters of law laid dewn. my toe Apex Court with regard te bvierferenmce by the Laat Gagne - ne "prey gt s Pig EG » re ay dee ai: ? ; ne "a E a fare hah Wl S60otc apnea! againat the concurrent a Te oe . we ee: la tcinge of fects. The tetent case Ialls. within : eMosptions referred to by the Apex Court in the case of Kashrtir Stith Vs. Harnam Maries. ih ox (oourt in the aid case eas regards al vue, the High Court will . the concurrent Endings of Cape comes ait the well plore we. 4) the courts DES CAELBS fee 4 *. slaw have igmiorerl the material evidence or roved facta by or ti the cas? the burden of to Vecigion based on omiy refers to cases where there ie a total dearth of eridence, but

2. Aen t git iysnbeew x0 aa. 32% eh ee ban, sd ge iO avy case, where the eviderme, TO Nm rr RIOR OZ? ee AAA PH COUR! UP RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C t ressornably capable - aiding."

the reeperedent cennet be pressed. listo \pervice omrticilars wi the nent of this o court: having held that tre of the plamitiff. is hopelessly barred by ad appeal - is. allowed ' The judgments af the

-aside and the suit of the plaintiff is Sd/< Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court