Dismissed

Kappathappa S/O Appannappa v. Jambawwa W/O Latebaramana Gowda

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2013RFA/1194/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the regular first appeals filed by heirs and purchasers challenging the trial court's decree in a partition suit. The Court held that properties were Sthreedhana of the mother, admitted to heirs, and the appellants failed to prove valid transfer via unregistered deeds. Original judgment decreeing ownership and mandatory injunction against the plaintiff was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; original judgment and decree decreeing declaration, possession and mandatory injunction against appellants upheld.

Kappathappa S/O Appannappa Vs Jambawwa W/O… — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN TH E HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. KEMPANNA

¶6

R.F.A. No.1194/2005 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KAPPATHAPPA S/O APPANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O SY NO 275 B, NEAR AKASAHVANI, HOSPET-583 201. Since deceased by LRs:

¶9

*1(a) B. Jayashree, w/o Siddalingappa, age: 49 years. R/o Darga Honnur,Bommanahal Mandal, Kanekal Taluk, Honnavar, Ananthapur Dist.

¶10

1(b) G. Shantakka, W/o Gudi Shivappa, aged about 68 years, R/at Harijanaker, Near Bapuji School, Hospet. 1(c)Smt.Parvathi Hiregoudar, W/o Basavangouda Hiregoudar, aged about 58 years, R/o Kadadi, Gadag Taluk and Dist.

¶11

NAGARAJ S/O KAPPATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SY NO 275 B NEAR AKASHAVANI, HOSPET-583 201.

¶12

3. K LEELAVATHI W/O K SHANKARANAND Z.P OFFICE, S.B. HALLI R/O 20 WARD, BEHIND AKASHAVANI HOSPET-583 201.

¶13

1(a) to 1(c) and Appellant No.2 are LRs of deceased Appellant No.1.

¶14

*Corrected vide C.O. dated: 24.01.2013.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(By SMT. VIDYA IYER ADV.)

¶17

AND:

¶18

JAMBAWWA W/O LATE BARAMANA GOWDA D/O PARVATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

R/O 17 WARD, HOSPET-583 201.

¶21

M HANUMANTHAMMA W/O M BARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O 14TH WARD, KABANPET HOSPET-583 201. 3. T VIJAYALAXMI W/O P NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O 15TH WARD, A.C. OFFICE, HOSPET-583 201. 4. K M RAMAKKA W/O K MARULASIDDAIAH FOOD INSPECTOR, HOSDURGA TALUK OFFICE, HOSADURGA-577 554 5. J B SAROJA W/O J.B. GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O 18TH WARD, DEVANGAPET, ‘ HOSPET-583 201. 6. BARAMAWWA D/O HULGAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BANADAKERIM, HOSPET-583 201. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. K.L.PATIL : S.S.BETURMATH ADVs. FOR R1. R3 & R5—SERVED; R2, R5 & R6 ARE DELETED V.C.O.Dt.25.7.08) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 15.6.2005 PASSED IN

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

OS.NO.103/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HOSPET, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION & MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

¶24

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

This appeal by defendants 1, 2 and 6 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2005 passed in O.S. No.103/2000 by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hospet, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration and mandatory injunction.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties in

¶28

this appeal would be referred to as they are referred to in the suit before the court below.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶30

The suit schedule properties are the landed properties bearing Sy.No.275.B/1, measuring 1.18 acres situtated in Hospet Village, Hospet Taluk and

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

a house bearing Door No.549, situated in 13^th Ward, Chitrakeri Area, Hospet, within the CMC, Hospet Taluk more-fully described in the schedule to the plaint, hereinafter referred to as “suit properties” for short.

¶33

It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the daughter of one late Parvathagouda alias Parvathappa and Smt. Hampamma. The defendant No.1 is the younger brother of Parvathagouda i.e., the father of the plaintiff, and Defendant No.2 is the son of Defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the properties belonging to her mother Hampamma, having got the same from her parents, after their death and as such she has succeeded to the suit schedule properties. Defendants 1 and 2 have no right, title and interest whatsoever in the suit properties nor they are the owners having any

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

right, title or interest in the suit properties. It is also her case that during the life time of her father, as he was unable to look after the properties properly, he requested his brother/defendant No.1 to manage the suit properties. As her mother had predeceased her father, defendants 1 and 2, father and son, taking undue advantage of the confidence reposed in them by her father, got the properties transferred in their name by creating a sham document and by virtue of the same, claiming to be the owners, got their names entered in the revenue records and thereafter got ‘A’ schedule property converted into site measuring 40’X50’ and sold the same in favour of defendants 3 to 8. The defendants 1 and 2 had no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit properties. She is the absolute owner of the suit properties having inherited the same from her parents Parvathagouda

¶36

: 6 :

¶37

and Hampamma, more particularly from her mother Hampamma. It is also her case that she came to know about the sale of the suit properties in favour of defendants 3 to 8 after the death of her husband in the year 1998. Thereafter, she came to know that all the sites have been sold by defendants 1 and 2 to defendants 3 to 8 and since then they are in unauthorised possession of the suit properties. As the defendants did not heed to her request of delivering the properties, she was constrained to file the suit for declaration that she is the absolute owner and also for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the unauthorised construction in the suit properties and to deliver the vacant possession of the same to her.

¶38

After service of suit summons, the defendants appeared and contested the suit of the

¶39

: 7 :

¶40

plaintiff. Among the defendants, defendants 1, 3 and 5 filed their written statement and defendants 2, 4, 6 and 8 adopted the written statement of defendant No.1.

¶41

The defendant No.1 in his written statement admitted that the deceased Parvathagouda is his brother and he came from Chikkanakoppa village of Yelburga Taluk in Koppal District. He came to Hospet and settled at Hospet as illatum son-in-law of his in-laws, i.e., the parents of his wife. Hampamma, the wife of Parvathagouda succeeded to suit properties belonging to her parents. Hampamma had predeceased her husband Parvathagouda, who is the father of the plaintiff. As such, Parvathagouda became the absolute owner of the suit properties. It is his further case that Parvathagouda was unable to take care of the properties properly as

¶42

: 8 :

¶43

plaintiff was in her marital home at Chikkankoppa village in Koppal Taluk and District. Therefore, Parvathagouda relinquished his right in the suit schedule ‘A’ property in his favour. Likewise, Parvathagouda also bequeathed his suit schedule ‘B’ property under a Will in the favour of his son Defendant No.2. As such, both defendants 1 and 2 were in possession and enjoyment of suit properties as exclusive owners. They had converted ‘A’ Schedule property into site measuring 40’X50’ sites and as the owners of the said sites, they had sold the same to defendants 3 to 8. The plaintiff has no manner of right whatsoever as Parvahtagouda has relinquished his right, title and interest in favour of defendant No.1 and had bequeathed the house property in favour of defendant No.2 under a Will. The plaintiff has no right whatsoever in the suit

¶44

: 9 :

¶45

properties and she cannot claim the relief and therefore, the suit be dismissed.

¶46

Defendant No.2 claimed the suit schedule

¶47

‘B’ property as his absolute property having succeeded to the same from his senior uncle Parvathagouda under a Will executed in his favour. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit schedule ‘B’ property. However, he did not dispute the suit schedule property belonging to the mother of the plaintiff namely Hampamma and she having got the same as Sthreedhana.

¶48

Defendant No.5 contended in her written statement that she is a bona fide purchaser of the site measuring 40’x50’ formed in the suit schedule ‘A’ property by defendant No.1 as he was the absolute owner of the suit property. Defendant No.1

¶49

: 10 :

¶50

had got the properties from his brother Parvathagouda who had relinquished his right over the same in favour of him. Since she is a bona-fide purchaser, she has become the absolute owner of a part of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and therefore, her possession should not be disturbed. It is also her case that being a bona fide purchaser of the site from defendant No.1, she has in turn sold the said site in favour of Anand Kulkarni of Hospet in the year 1996. She has sold the said site to Anand Kulkarni being the absolute owner of the said site. Therefore, by virtue of the same, Anand Kulkarni is the absolute owner and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. As such, his possession shall not be disturbed. She further contended that Anand Kulkarni has not been made a party to the suit as such, the suit is bad for non-joinder of

¶51

: 11 :

¶52

necessary parties. Accordingly, she sought for

¶53

dismissal of the suit.

¶54

On the basis of the above pleadings, the

¶55

trial court framed the following issues:

¶56

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties?

¶57

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 was managing the suit schedule properties around two years back and he has assured that, the entire affairs of the properties will be entrusted to her as alleged in para 5 of the plaint?

¶58

(iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant No.1 has entered into a sale with defendant Nos.3 to 8 illegally without having any right, title or interest over the property?

¶59

(iv) Whether the 3^rd defendant proves that he is the bona fide purchaser for a valid consideration as alleged in para 3 of the written statement?

¶60

: 12 :

¶61

(v) Whether the 5^th defendant proves that she is a bona fide purchaser of the suit schedule ‘A’ property from defendant No.1 and he has already sold it to one Nagabhusan on 04.11.1996 and the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties?

¶62

(vi) Whether the 1^st defendant proves that the court fee paid is insufficient as alleged in para 11 of the written statement?

¶63

(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?

¶64

(viii) What order or decree?

¶65

The plaintiff in support of her case got examined herself as PW-1 and two independent witnesses by name Vasu and Narayanappa as PWs2 and 3. He produced 17 documents which came to be marked as Exs.1 to 17. On behalf of the defendants, 2^nd defendant was examined as DW-1 and defendants 4 and 5 got examined themselves

¶66

: 13 :

¶67

as DWs-2 and 3. They produced in all three

¶68

documents, which came to be marked as Exs.D-1 to 3.

¶69

The trial court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record held that the plaintiff has proved that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. She has failed to prove that the 1^st defendant was managing the suit properties about two years back and he had assured that the entire affairs of the properties will be entrusted to her. It further held that the plaintiff has proved that the 1^st defendant had entered into a sale with defendants 3 to 8 illegally without having any right, title or interest over the property. It also held that the 3^rd defendant has failed to prove that he is a bona fide purchaser for a valid consideration. Likewise, it also held that the 5^th defendant is also not a bona

¶70

: 14 :

¶71

fide purchaser of the suit property from defendant

¶72

No.1 and he has already sold it to one Nagabhushan on 04.11.1996 and as such, the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Insofar as the issue of court fee paid as insufficient, it is held while answering the preliminary issue as sufficient and further held that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of suit schedule properties. Accordingly, by its judgment and decree dated 15.06.2005, decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶73

The appellants/defendants being

¶74

aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court are in appeal before this Court.

¶75

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶76

appellants assailing the impugned judgment and

¶77

: 15 :

¶78

decree of the trial court contended firstly, the plaintiff has not established her paternity. She nextly contended that Ex.P1 on which reliance has been placed by the plaintiff to prove her paternity has not been proved in accordance with law inasmuch as no official who has issued Ex.P1 has been examined before the Court. She further contended that Ex.P1 discloses that it has been issued by Vice Principal of Govt. Pre University college whereas, the certificate itself discloses that she has studied upto 4^th standard which goes to show that Ex.P1 is a concocted document to prove the paternity. She further contended that the plaintiff has described herself as Jambawwa whereas in Ex.P1 her name is described as Jambakka. Apart from the same, though she claims her father’s name as Parvathagouda, Ex.P1 discloses that her father’s name is Parvathappa

¶79

: 16 :

¶80

and not Parvathagouda. She further contended that the material on record reveals that Parvathagouda himself has given a declaration Ex.D3 in which he had claimed that he had no issues at all and he is transferring his rights in the property in favour of his brother-first defendant. The trial Court without appreciating the recitals in the document Ex.D3 has committed an error in holding that Parvathagouda had not transferred any rights and at any rate, plaintiff cannot claim as the daughter of Parvathagouda. She further contended that on the basis of the requisition given by Parvathagouda mutation entries have been carried out in the name of the first defendant in respect of the A schedule property and that mutation entry has been made in the revenue records pursuant to the order of transferring the land in favour of the first respondent. In the light

¶81

: 17 :

¶82

of this, the trial Court without properly

¶83

appreciating the material on record in the right perspective and ignoring the additional documents which have been produced before the Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that she is the daughter of Parvathagouda and Hampamma and as such she is the absolute owner of the property which cannot be sustained. Hence, the judgment and decree of the court below be set aside by allowing the appeal.

¶84

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff supporting the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court contended that as the relinquishment deed set-up by defendants 1 & 2 is not registered as contemplated under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, as the property being an immoveable property of the value more than Rs.100/-the theory of relinquishment made by

¶85

: 18 :

¶86

Parvatahagouda cannot be believed. He further contended that as the defendant No.1 has admitted that the suit schedule properties are the Sthreedhana properties of Hampamma, the mother of the plaintiff, Parvathagouda had no right, title or interest in the same to alienate in any manner much less by way of relinquishment deed or by executing the Will. He further contended that even assuming that Parvathagouda had executed a Will in favour of the 2^nd defendant, as the said Will has not been placed before the Court and proved in accordance with law, the trial court has not committed any error in holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having inherited the same from her mother, Hampamma.

¶87

Insofar as the contentions of the defendant No.6 in this appeal is concerned, as she has

¶88

: 19 :

¶89

purchased the property from a person who had no right, title or interest, the sale made in his favour is illegal and cannot be sustained. In the light of the same, the findings of the trail court does not call for any interference and hence, the same has to be dismissed.

¶90

Taking the rival contentions, the evidence

¶91

and the documents on record the points that arise for consideration are :-

¶92

i) Whether the plaintiff has established that she is the daughter of Parvathagouda and Hampamma, as such she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having succeeded to the same from her parents;

¶93

ii) Whether defendants 1 and 2 have proved the deceased Parvathgouda had executed a relinquishment deed in favour of his brother the first

¶94

: 20 :

¶95

defendant and had bequeathed the house property in favour of the second defendant under a will?

¶96

iii) Whether the 6^th defendant has established that she has become the absolute owner of the property having purchased the same from first defendant?

¶97

iv) Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference?

¶98

Re. POINT Nos.1 & 2 :-

¶99

It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the daughter of Parvathagouda and Hampamma. It is also her case that the suit properties are the properties of her mother Hampamma having been given to her as sreedhana from her parents. It is her further case that her father Parvathagouda after marrying her mother came and stayed in his in-laws house as illatum son-in-law. He was

¶100

: 21 :

¶101

looking after the property belonging to her grand parents including the suit schedule properties. On account of his advanced age as he could not manage the properties and as the plaintiff was residing in her marital home, he requested his brother, the first defendant, to look after the properties. As such, the first defendant was looking after the properties for and on behalf of plaintiff’s mother Hampamma who admittedly was the owner of the suit schedule property. It is her further case that after the death of her mother Hampamma she became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as her father’s whereabouts were not known to her. Since the properties were in possession of defendants 1 and 2, when she requested to hand over the same, it was refused and therefore, she filed the suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction.

¶102

: 22 :

¶103

On the other hand, it is the case of the

¶104

defendants that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Parvathagouda and Hampamma. She has no nexus with that family at all. According to them Parvathagouda had no issues at all through Hampamma. After the death of his wifeHampamma, Parvathagouda inherited the suit schedule properties. As such he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. He relinquished his rights during his lifetime as he was in his advanced age and as he was not able to manage the properties in favour of the first defendant who was taking care of him during his last days. Therefore, Parvathagouda after relinquishing his rights also got the properties transferred in the name of the first defendant. Accordingly, the lands were transferred in the name of the first defendant and pursuant to the same

¶105

: 23 :

¶106

mutation entries were also entered on the

¶107

requisition given by Parvathagouda. This is in respect of ‘A’ schedule property. Insofar as the ‘B’ schedule property is concerned, it is their case that Parvathagouda had bequeathed the same under a will in favour of the second defendant. As such, the second defendant had become the absolute owner.

¶108

The plaintiff in order to establish her paternity has relied upon Ex.P1. Apart from the same she has also examined herself and two more witnesses PWs 2 and 3. Ex.P1 is the school leaving certificate. That discloses the same having been issued by the Vice Principal of Government Pre University College. The contents of the same reveals that she had studied upto 4^th standard and her name has been described as Jambakka and not Jambawwa. Her father’s name has been described

¶109

: 24 :

¶110

as Parvathappa and not Parvathagowda. As rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant if according to the plaintiff she has studied upto 4^th standard, this school leaving certificate could not have been issued by the Vice Principal of the Govt. Pre University College. On the other hand, it should have been issued by the head master of either the lower primary school or higher primary school. Therefore, Ex.P1 may not come to the aid of the plaintiff to establish her paternity. Nextly,

¶111

we have the evidence of the plaintiff and her two witnesses. The plaintiff admittedly claims that she is the daughter of Parvathagouda and Hamapamma. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 also goes to show that she is the daughter of Parvathgouda and Hampamma. In the cross examination of these two witnesses PWs.2 and 3 nothing serious has been elicited to discredit their testimony with regard to

¶112

: 25 :

¶113

the paternity of the plaintiff. Apart from this, the

¶114

first defendant in his written statement has not specifically denied the paternity of the plaintiff. When there is a clear admission on the part of the first defendant, with regard to the paternity of the plaintiff, which is not specifically denied by him coupled with the evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses, it has to be held that the plaintiff has established that she is the daughter of Parvathagouda and Hampamma and the trial Court on appreciation of the material on record has come to the right conclusion that the plaintiff is the daughter of Parvathagouda and Hampamma. Accordingly, the said finding does not call for interference.

¶115

The defendants claim that Parvathagouda had relinquished his rights in A schedule property and had bequeathed B schedule property in favour

¶116

: 26 :

¶117

of defendant No.2. In support of their claim they have firstly not produced the relinquishment deed before the Court. The only document on which they have placed reliance is Ex.D3 marked in the case. D3 is a zerox copy. According to the counsel for the appellant Ex.D3 is the document i.e. the affidavit filed by Parvathgouda before the competent court which is a public authority. In that Ex.D3 he has clearly mentioned that he has no issues and he has transferred his rights in the ‘A’ schedule property in favour of the first defendant. As already pointed out the original or the certified copy of Ex.D3 has not been placed before the Court. In this connection attention of the Court was drawn to certain documents which had been produced as additional evidence by an application which came to be allowed. During the trial the said documents have not been properly marked through

¶118

: 27 :

¶119

the witnesses. Even otherwise if according to defendants, Parvathagouda had relinquished his rights in the suit ‘A’ schedule property, which is a landed property, it being an immovable property, the said relinquishment deed ought to have been registered as contemplated u/s.17 of the Indian Registration Act. The said document itself not produced, let alone the relinquishment deed having been registered before the Competent Authority, therefore, any subsequent event that have taken place without there being valid transfer of title will have no bearing in the eye of law. As already pointed out, it is undisputed that the suit schedule property are the sreedhana property of Hampamma. The plaintiff has established that she is the daughter of Parvathagouda and Hampamma. Therefore, by virtue of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, she has become the absolute owner

¶120

: 28 :

¶121

having inherited the same from her mother Hampamma. Otherwise also the said property would revert back to parental legal heirs of Hampamma. Admittedly, in this case, the plaintiff is the daughter of Hampamma. Therefore, Parvathagouda does not get any right, title or interest in the property either way. If that is the case, Parvathagouda executing any relinquishment deed in respect of the suit schedule property or bequeathing the same does not arise at all and if any such act has been done that will have no validity in the eye of law. Therefore, on this ground also, the case of the defendants that Parvathagouda had relinquished his rights in the suit property and on his representation the authorities have acted to change the entries in revenue records in respect of the lands i.e., ‘A’ schedule property in the name of the first defendant will have no bearing to the case.

¶122

: 29 :

¶123

Coming to the ‘B’ schedule property, it is the case of the defendants that Parvathagouda had bequeathed the said property by executing a will in favour of the second defendant. Admittedly, the will is not placed before the Court and proved in accordance with law by the propounder of the will. In the absence of any will it cannot be said that the second defendant is the absolute owner of the ‘B’ schedule property.

¶124

The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the plaintiff is not the wife of Bharmana Gouda, but she is the wife of Nayakara Bharmagouda which is supported by Ex.D1 voters list. The trial Court has not framed any issue on this aspect. It is to be noted that main issue is with regard to the paternity of the plaintiff and not whether she is the wife of Bharmagouda or

¶125

: 30 :

¶126

Nayakara Bharmagouda. Therefore, that issue will have no bearing to the facts of the case having regard to the rival contentions of the parties. Accordingly, it is rejected.

¶127

POINT NO.3 :

¶128

Insofar as the claim of the 6^th defendant that she is the bonafide purchaser of the property, since Parvathagouda himself had no right, title or interest over the property he could not have conveyed the property in favour of the 6^th defendant or the other defendants viz. 3 to 5 and 7 and 8. Therefore, the 6^th defendant cannot be considered to be the bonafide purchaser from the first defendant as the first defendant himself had no valid title to the property from a person who had valid title to the property to sell the same in favour of 6^th defendant. In this connection, it is to be stated that the 5^th defendant in the case who is

¶129

: 31 :

¶130

also a purchaser of the property from the first defendant had preferred RFA No.1331/05 before this Court and the said appeal also came to be dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 19.7.2010. The other defendants viz. the defendants 3,4,7 and 8 have not preferred any appeal challenging the judgment and decree. In that view of the matter the trial Court on appreciation of the material on record has come to the right conclusion that the plaintiff has established that she is the daughter of Parvathagouda and Hampamma and she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and has granted the relief sought for by her.

¶131

POINT No.4 :

¶132

Taking from any angle, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court having been based on facts and law supported with sound

¶133

: 32 :

¶134

reasons, it does not suffer from any infirmity or

¶135

illegality calling for interference in this appeal.

¶136

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Parties

¶137

to bear their own cost.

¶138

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶139

RKK/RS/-

Kappathappa S/O Appannappa v. Jambawwa W/O Latebaramana Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kappathappa S/O Appannappa v. Jambawwa W/O Latebaramana Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Hanumantappa Vs Sri Abdul Munaf

The Divisional Manager Vs Neelawwa W/O Laxman Ganiger

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Revappa S/O Satyappa Tolake

Tukaram Vithobha Patil Occ Agril Vs Kallappa Ganesh Patil Occ Agril

K Babulal S/O Tarachand Vs H Raghunath Shetty S/O Late Venkaiah Shetty

Shri Appaji Govind Goral Vs Shri Yallappa Gundu Goral