Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing R. Abbaiah Reddy (Since Dead By Lrs. ... vs Udaya Chandra [Alongwith H.R.R.P. Nos. ... on 14 November, 2006

Smt.Leelavathi.P.Mahale vs Sri.Hanumanthappa Siddlingappanavar on 2 January, 2021

He also relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2007 KAR 374 (R. Abbaiah Reddy and Ors. V. Udaya Chandra) wherein the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed and both the courts below dismissed the petition and this court held that there was a complicated dispute regarding the title and it directed the parties to approach the competent civil court for declaration of their rights.
Bangalore District Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The vs Appeared Through Their Respective ... on 17 April, 2021

He also relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2007 KAR 374 (R. Abbaiah Reddy and Ors. V. Udaya Chandra) wherein the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed and both the courts below dismissed the petition and this court held that there was a complicated dispute regarding the title and it directed the parties to approach the competent civil court for declaration of their rights.
Bangalore District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Chikkavenkatamma vs Smt.Jothi @ Jothamma @ Latha on 11 January, 2021

Even the boundaries shown are not admitted by the defendant. The Sale deed produced by the defendant does not show it is existing in Sy. No.74/1. However, the litigation fought between Byrappa and plaintiff are not about the title of the plaintiff, but the suit was for specific performance and the same was dismissed. Under such circumstances, when the plaintiff has failed to prove the property with cogent documents, in my opinion the Judgment relied by defendant counsel in ILR 2007 KAR 371 between R.Abbaiah Reddy and others Vs Udaya Chandra is aptly applicable. Hence, in my opinion the plaintiff miserably failed to prove her case and the defendant cannot be considered as a tenant as claimed by her. Therefore, she is not entitled for the relief's sought for.
Bangalore District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamala Narayan vs Venkatesh.T on 4 January, 2024

14. Case on hand, plaintiff and her husband jointly purchased suit property as per Ex.P2 registered sale deed. The defendant only contended that the plaintiff is rent collector on behalf of Sri. Chandrashekara and also admitted that he is a tenant in the suit schedule property. With due respect of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, I am of the opinion that there is no serious dispute regarding title of the plaintiff. Hence the facts and circumstances of the above reported judgment and case on hand are not one and the same. Hence, judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for defendant is not helpful to his case. Further, the defendant relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2006 Katakana 371 in between R. Abbaiah Reddy and others v. Udaya Chandra wherein Hon'ble High Court held as follows: -
Bangalore District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1