Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against orders confirming decree for property declaration. Court held no substantial question of law arose from concurrent findings on ownership and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; I.A. (interim application) for stay also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.S.A.No.179/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.179/2013
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE OCC: AGRICULTURE AND R/O HISSAMUDRA, HOSAHATTI VILLAGE BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI
DT. AND TALUK. CHITRADURGA – 577 515
BOTH ARE BY OCC: AGRICULTURISTS R/O ANNAPURA DT.
AND TALUK DAVANAGERE – 577 003 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
B BASAVARAJAPPA, S/O BADAGI BANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O ANNAPURA VILLAGE DT AND TALUK DAVANAGERE - 577 003 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R )
R.S.A.No.179/2013
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 26.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.18/2011 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 18.8.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.279/2007 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
This second appeal is by defendant nos.2 to 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgments of the two Courts below.
R.S.A.No.179/2013
Badagi Bommamma who was the owner of the suit property and by virtue of Ex.P1, the suit property devolved on the plaintiff. The appellants herein carried the matter to the Lower Appellate Court which confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Concurrent findings by both the courts. The aforesaid finding that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property is based on a proper consideration of the evidence on record. In my opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. No ground to admit the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.I/2012 filed for interim stay also stands dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
hkh.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises from concurrent findings on ownership under Civil Procedure Code Section 100.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Basavarajappa
Eramma
Basavarajappa
H.G. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
