Disposed

Smt P Rukkamma v. T K Ramkumar

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2021RFA/809/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two references from appeals against decrees in mutually joined suits regarding property injunctions. The court held that while injunction could not be refused to the purchaser, the decrees do not interfere with the pendency of final decree proceedings in the related partition suit, directing expedious disposal thereof.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were disposed of; injunction to the purchaser affirmed but decrees held not to interfere with pending final decree proceedings in the partition suit.

Smt P Rukkamma Vs T K Ramkumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶5

R.F.A.No.808/2008 C/W

¶6

R.F.A.No.809/2008

¶7

IN RFA No.808/2008:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . SRI N NANJAPPA S/O LATE N NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A No.72, N N FARM GEDDALAHALLI, RMV II STAGE BANGALORE-560 094.

¶10

2 . SMT. P RUKKAMMA W/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶11

3 . SIR BYRE GOWDA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶12

4 . SRI M NARAYANA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 2 TO 5 ARE R/AT GEDDALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶13

5 . SRI N RAMESH

¶14

¶15

S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A N N FARM, GEDDALAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶16

6 . SMT. J V JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶17

7 . SRI NAVEEN @ NAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶18

8 . SRI NARENDRA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 1 TO 3 ARE R/A NARAYANAPPA FARM RMV II STAGE GEDDALAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 094.

¶19

...APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI JAGANATH K M, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND: T K RAMKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O T K VENKATRAM R/A No.11, ‘GEETHANJALI’ 11^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN VYALIKAVAL BANGALORE-03. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAJKUMAR R, FOR SRI N JAIPRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶22

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAISNT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:11.6.2008 PASSED IN OS.No.16155/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHAL UNIT, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶24

IN RFA No.809/2008:

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SMT. P RUKKAMMA W/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶27

2 . SRI BYRE GOWDA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶28

3 . SRI M NARAYANA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 2 TO 5 ARE R/AT GEDDALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶29

4 . SRI N NANJAPPA S/O LATE N NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A No.72, N N FARM GEDDALAHALLI, RMV II STAGE BANGALORE-560 094.

¶30

5 . SRI N RAMESH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A N N FARM, GEDDALAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶31

¶32

6 . SMT. J V JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 7 . SRI NAVEEN @ NAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 8 . SRI NARENDRA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 1 TO 3 ARE R/A NARAYANAPPA FARM RMV II STAGE GEDDALAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 094. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI JAGANATH K M, ADVOCATE) AND: T K RAMKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O T K VENKATRAM R/A No.11, ‘GEETHANJALI’ 11^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN VYALIKAVAL BANGALORE-3. …RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI RAJKUMAR R, FOR SRI N JAIPRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAISNT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:11.6.2008 PASSED IN OS.No.15649/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHAL UNIT, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

¶35

¶36

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

appellants/defendants- Nanjappa and others against

¶39

the judgment and decree dated 11-06-2008 passed in O.S.No.16155/2003 and R.F.A.No.809/2008 is filed

¶40

by the appellants/plaintiffs-Rukkamma and others against the judgment and decree dated 11-06-2008 passed in O.S.No.15649/2004.

¶41

In order to avoid conflict and overlapping,

¶42

the parties are addressed in accordance with their status and rankings held by them in the trial court.

¶43

Prayer of the plaintiff Sri. T.K. Ramkumar

¶44

in O.S.No.16155/ 2003 is for permanent injunction against defendants-N.Nanjappa and others claiming

¶45

¶46

that immoveable property bearing Municipal No.117/A (Old No.117 khatha No.296/117 carved out of Sy.Nos. 28/2, 29 and 30/2 of Geddalahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk) situated at 7^th Cross Road, Narayanappa Extension, Geddalahalli, Bangalore, in Corporation Ward No.100 which is described as Item No.1 in the schedule and property bearing Municipal No.117 (formerly being site No.117, khata No.296/117 carved out of Sy.No.30/2 of Geddalahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk) situated at 7^th Cross Road, Narayanappa Extension, Geddalahalli, Bangalore, in corporation Ward No.100 which is described as Item No.2 in the schedule, were owned and possessed by one Sri. G.N.Muniramappa having been acquired by him under

¶47

two registered sale deed dated 4.8.1964 in document No.3387/64-65, Book I, Volume 2426, Pages 202 to

¶48

¶49

205 and registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, Bangalore North.

¶50

It is further submitted that the properties come within the administrative jurisdiction of Bangalore City Corporation and Mr.G.N.Muniramappa has paid the betterment charges in respect of site No.117 vide received dated 10.2.2000 in a sum of Rs.28,900/- and in respect of site No.117/A vide received dated 10.2.2000 in a sum of Rs.28,900/respectively. Pursuant to the regularization of the schedule properties by the Bangalore City Corporation, the khata has been registered in the name of Mr. G.N.Muniramappa in the revenue registers of the Corporation and that the property taxes have been paid regularly.

¶51

It is further submitted that, earlier a

¶52

settlement was reached between Mr. Muniramappa

¶53

¶54

and Mr. N.Narasimhaiah on 30-08-1990 wherein N.Narasimhaiah had disclaimed any interest in the site measuring 40 ft. x 60 ft carved out of Sy.No.28/2, 29 and 30/2 of Geddalahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk in lieu of consideration received and accordingly, the said endorsement was signed by the parties. It is further stated that based on the representation of Mr. Muniramappa plaintiff herein bonafide entered into an oral contract to purchase the schedule properties and accordingly on 17-5-2000 mobilized funds, borrowed loan and with the financial help of HDFC got executed the registered sale deeds in his favour. Thereafter, plaintiff got transferred khata in his name and paying taxes. It is also submitted that, pursuant to execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff, he was put in possession of the schedule properties and since then he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute

¶55

¶56

owner and defendants are total strangers. It is also submitted that, thereafter, plaintiff obtained sanction plan on 15-2-2007 from the Bangalore City Corporation for construction, at that time, defendants along with some undesirable elements came near the suit properties and threatened to interfere with plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, trespassed without any manner of right, title and interest.

¶57

It is further stated that defendants are land grabbers and have been holding threat of interference. It is further stated plaintiff has a prima facie case and documents produced by him clearly establish his right, title and interest, the cause of action arose on 24.8.2003 in the schedule property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court when the defendants confronted with plaintiffs and threatened to demolish the wall and commit the acts of trespass

¶58

¶59

and dispossession and when plaintiff threatened the defendants that they would file a criminal complaint before the police, defendants left the place. Thereafter, defendants threatened the plaintiffs since they have the support of local rowdy elements and plaintiff cannot protect their lawful possession except by an order of the Court since the police have also expressed that disputes of any civil nature cannot be entertained without any orders of the court and hence, police are unable to protect the interest of plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has filed the suit praying to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, henchmen or any other person or persons claiming under the authority or trust for the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties or from causing any damage to

¶60

¶61

the compound wall, or from obstructing the

¶62

construction on the suit schedule properties.

¶63

1^st defendant appeared and contested the

¶64

matter by filing written statement. The substance of the written statement filed by the 1^st defendant are: G.N.Muniramappa was the owner in possession of the lands bearing survey No.28/2, 29 and 30/2 of Geddalahalli village, having acquired the said lands under a registered sale deed dated 04-08-1964 are denied, on the ground that, under the aforesaid sale deed, not only Muniramappa, but also his elder brother late Narayanappa, the father of this defendant jointly purchased the aforesaid lands in all measuring 9 acres 32 guntas under the provisions of Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 and the said lands formed one compact block. By the time of the aforesaid purchase, there was already a partition between said Narayanappa and his bother Muniramappa under a

¶65

¶66

partition deed dated 4-4-1960. Subsequently, the said lands were divided between them. Narayanappa took

¶67

5 acres 32 guntas and Muniramappa took 4 acres towards their shares having regard to the fertility, location and the nature of crops that were being grown on the said lands.

¶68

It is further contended that, after the death of Narayanappa, this defendant and his brothers, namely, defendants 2 and 3 and late Narasimhaiah and aforesaid Muniramappa and his two sons had entered into an agreement of sale dated 31-8-1990 with one C. Padmanabhaiah son of late Venkataswamy agreeing to sell the entire land of 4 acres allotted to the share of Muniramappa and 1 acre of land out of the lands allotted to the share of late Narayanappa at the rate of Nine lakhs per acre and the said Padmanabaiah was authorized to form sites in the said lands and also to sell the so formed sites and also

¶69

¶70

agreed to execute the sale deeds in favour of purchasers chosen by the said Padmanabhaiah. Here it is to be remembered that this Padmanabhaiah purchased the property from Muniramappa and his sons and sons of Narayanappa. To be clear, 5 acres of property was sold conjointly by Muniramappa and his sons and sons of Narayanappa because by that time he was dead. However, the said Muniramappa filed suit in O.S.No.7728/1992 before the City Civil Courts, for partition and separate possession of an extent of 31 guntas in survey No.29 and 30/2 and obtained an order of status quo of the suit properties until further orders. This defendant and his brothers had filed their detailed written statement and objections to IA and also filed an application for vacating the said status quo order. After hearing, the court by order dated 7-1-1997 modified the earlier interim order restricting

¶71

the status quo order to an extent of 31 guntas only till

¶72

¶73

the disposal of the suit in OS No.7728/1992 and the

¶74

said suit is pending.

¶75

It is further contended that this defendant is

¶76

not aware of the internal mischief and galatas and misunderstanding between the parties. Further, defendant submits that he purchased the property as bonafide purchaser and question of trespassing over his own land is not justifiable and being perfect owner has go marketable title.

¶77

Insofar as O.S.No.15649/2003 is concerned,

¶78

it is filed by N. Muniswamaiah along with his two brothers N.Nanjappa and N. Ramesh being the sons of Late Narayanappa along with Jayalakshmamma wife of N. Narasimhaiah, N.Naveenkumar and N.Narendra sons of late Narasimhaiah against the defendant – T.K.Ram Kumar.

¶79

¶80

The relief sought in this suit is for

¶81

permanent injunction restraining the defendant from changing or altering the nature and character of the suit schedule property by putting up unauthorized construction or committing acts of waste and damage thereon and for mandatory injunction directing demolition of the illegal construction put up by the defendant on the suit schedule properties.

¶82

It is to be reminded that in respect of the same subject matter, defendant Ramkumar filed a suit against the sons of Narayanappa and Nanjappa and others in OS No.16155/2003 seeking the prayer for permanent injunction. The schedule properties in the said suit are:

¶83

ITEM No.1:

¶84

All that piece and parcel of the immovable Property bearing Municipal No.117/A (formerly being site No.117, Khata No.296/117, carved out of Sy.Nos.28/2, 29 and 30/2 of Geddahalhalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk), situated at 7^th cross Road,

¶85

¶86

Narayanappa Extension, Geddalahalli, Bangalore in Corporation Ward No.100 together with the structures thereon with electricity and including all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto and the building constructed in or about year 1970 on site measuring East to West:65 feet and North to South: 40 feet total area:2,600 square feet and bounded on the:

¶87

East by : Road West by : AECS Layout North by : 7^th Cross Road South by : Property bearing Municipal No.117.

¶88

ITEM No.2:

¶89

All the piece and parcel of the immovable Property bearing Municipal No.117 (formerly being site No.117, Khata No.296/117, carved out of Sy.No.30/2 of Geddalahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk), situated at 7^th cross Road, Narayanappa Extension, Geddalahalli, Bangalore in Corporation Ward No.100 together with the structures thereon with electricity and including all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto and the building constructed in or about year 1970 on site measuring East to West:65 feet and North to South:40 feet total area:2,600 square feet and bounded on the:

¶90

East by : Road West by : Property No.118 North by : Property bearing Municipal No.117. South by : 7^th Cross Road.”

¶91

¶92

The claim of the plaintiff and defendants in

¶93

each of the cases are that material or primary party in OS No.16155/2003 is Ramkumar and he has filed a suit against the brother of his vendors. The defendants filed written statement.

¶94

In the sum and substance of the case, it is seen that two sites are purchased by plaintiff Ramkumar in the area covered by survey No.28/2 , 29 and 30/2. Thus, he has placed his representation for the relief of injunction against Nanjappa and others. At the same time, N. Muniswamaiah, N. Nanjappa, N.Ramesh sons of Narayanappa along with Jayalakshmamma wife of Narasimhaiah and Naveenkumar and Narendra, children of said Narasimhaiah filed a suit for permanent injunction against Ramkumar. The suits are clubbed and pleadings in substance of one party is nothing but the objection statement or the pleadings of the other

¶95

¶96

party and what is stated by the plaintiff in first case would be the substance in the written statement as defendant and vice versa.

¶97

The trial court framed the following issues

¶98

in both the suits:

¶99

Issues in OS No.16155/2003:

¶100

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in is lawful, actual and physical possession of the suit properties as on the date of the suit?

¶101

Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants into his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties?

¶102

3.Whether the defendants prove that the suit schedule properties are situated within the disputed 31 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.29 and 30/2 of Geddalahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk as contended in their written-statement?

¶103

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the Permanent Injunction as prayed for?

¶104

To what decree or order the parties are entitled?

¶105

¶106

Issues in OS No.15649/2004

¶107

Whether the plaintiffs prove two sale deeds dated 17.5.2000 executed by Munimarappa in favour of the defendant is in violation of orders of Status-quo passed in OS No.7728/1992 and hence they are void, invalid and illegal documents as alleged in para Nos.10 and 11 of the plaint?

¶108

Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant tried to change and alter the nature of the suit properties by putting up unauthorized construction as alleged?

¶109

Whether the plaintiff proves that they are entitled for injunction as prayed for?

¶110

Whether the defendants prove that suit for bare injunction without seeking a better and proper relief is not maintainable in law as contended in para No.4 of h is writtenstatement?

¶111

Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not properly framed and valued and the court fee paid is not proper?

¶112

Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have filed false, frivolous and vexatious suit with the knowledge that the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and hence are liable to pay compensation cost of Rs.25,000/as contended in para No.3 of the written – statement?

¶113

Whether the defendants prove that he is entitled for Mandatory Injunction order directing the plaintiffs to put him in possession

¶114

¶115

of the suit property to him as contended in his written-statement?

¶116

To what decree or order the parties are entitled?”

¶117

The learned trial judge was accommodated

¶118

with the oral evidence of PW1-T.K.Ramkumar, PW2G.M.Venkatesh, PW3-H.M.Venkatesh and

¶119

documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P33 on behalf of plaintiff Ramkumar and oral evidence of DW1Nanjappa and documentary evidence of Exs.D1 to D9 on behalf of defendants.

¶120

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned

¶121

trial judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff Ramkumar and dismissed the suit of N. Muniswamaiah and others. The operative portion of Judgment reads as under:

¶122

ORDER

¶123

“The suit of the plaintiffs in OS No.15649/2004 is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in the said suit.

¶124

¶125

The suit of the plaintiff in OS No.16155/2003 is decreed against the defendants with costs. Defendants, their agents, or anyone claiming through them are hereby restrained by way of Permanent Injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. They are further restrained from obstructing the plaintiff in the construction of the building in the suit schedule properties or from causing any damage to the compound wall.

¶126

3. Draw decree accordingly.

¶127

Keep the copy of the Judgment in OS No.15649/2004.”

¶128

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants –N.Nanjappa and others filed RFA No.808/2009 against plaintiff Ramkumar in OS No.16155/2003 and plaintiffs-Muniswamaiah and others filed RFA No.809/2009 against defendantRamkumar in OS No.15649/2004.

¶129

The admitted pleadings are that, the vendor

¶130

of plaintiff- Ramkumar is G.N.Muniramappa, who is

¶131

¶132

the brother of Narayanappa whose children are at logger heads with the plaintiff. Admittedly, the matter is also evidenced through the partition decree passed in O.S.No.7728/1992. The operative portion of the same reads as under:

¶133

“Suit is decreed in part without an order as to costs.

¶134

Plaintiffs are held entitled to an extent of 31 guntas inclusive of two sites measuring 40 x 60 feet each.

¶135

There shall be a partition for allotment of said extent in the schedule land sin favour of plaintiffs.

¶136

Let a preliminary decree be drawn accordingly.”

¶137

It is an admitted fact that, in the partition

¶138

suit in OS No.7728/1992, 31 guntas of land fell to the

¶139

share of Muniswamappa and his sons and 3 acres 31 guntas of land fell to the share of N.Narayanappa.

¶140

¶141

The scope of these suits are not relating to 31 guntas of land that was allotted to Narayanappa. It is necessary to make a mention that before the partition was effected, there is inter sales of the properties, the total entitlement of the properties of the share of one Narayanappa and Muniramappa as stated above. The said partition suit was decreed on 16-2-2007. Now the Final decree proceedings are pending in FDP No.60/2007. The stage of the appointment of the Commissioner under order 26 Rule 13 CPC is not yet stated to have happened.

¶142

Now the contention is between Ramkumar

¶143

who purchased from Muniramappa on one side and Nanjappa and others on the other side. On the factual verification, there is no dispute regarding the execution of sale deed by Muniramaiah in favour of Ramkumar.

¶144

¶145

Learned counsel for appellants submits the

¶146

suit is misconceived and premature. Learned counsel would further submit when the matter is covered in previous suit, disposal of the suit may cause confusion and conflict in the said suit. Whatever property was sold to Ramkumar which are from the share of Muniramappa and the suit decreed in favour of Ramkumar and there is no proper appreciation of evidence.

¶147

Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Rajkumar for respondent/plaintiff- Ramkumar would submit that the Ramkumar is a bonfide purchaser for a value and after verifying the title of Muniramappa, he purchased the property. Under the guise of the quarrel between the brothers, nephew and cousins, Ramkumar has to bear the burnt.

¶148

¶149

Admittedly, OS No.16155/2003 was filed

¶150

by Ramkumar against N.Nanjappa and others that came to be decreed. The result would be the schedule properties as stated above come under the prohibitory order issued by the court that decreed the suit for permanent injunction. The sale of properties by Muniramappa is not disputed nor his children are having any claim over the same. Insofar as two sites of Ramkumar is concerned, what the learned counsel would submit is, when the final decree proceedings is pending and has to demark the boundaries through the appointment of Commissioner during distribution of the properties, the properties of the plaintiff Ramkumar will be hanging in abeyance.

¶151

Learned counsel for plaintiff-Ramkumar

¶152

would submit that construction over the schedule properties is complete upto the first floor. In this connection, other things being equal, whenever out of

¶153

¶154

the joint family properties a portion of the same is sold by a member of the joint family and when the sale is genuine and the right of the joint family membership and properties are also genuine, the purchaser of the properties will not be disappointed and the properties sold to Ramkumar invariably must be within the area of 31 guntas. Insofar as the construction is concerned, I have heard the submission of the learned counsel for plaintiffRamkumar. Whether basement or lintel level, ground floor or first floor his remedy is only one, in case if it is trespass. As such keeping the said principles in my mind, I find there cannot be a prohibitory order against the remaining construction over the property in accordance with the direction. Insofar as whole suit is considered to avoid further litigation till Final Decree Proceedings are over, this decree will be hanging in abeyance. Hence, the parties are supposed to

¶155

¶156

participate in the final decree proceedings and await for the final decree to be passed. However, the present suits are concerned, injunction to the purchaser/plaintiff Ramkumar cannot be refused. However, his judgment and decree does not come in the way of proceedings to go ahead in Final Decree proceedings. At the same time, considering the circumstances, the court in FDP No.60/2007 shall hear

¶157

and dispose of the same, expeditiously, but not beyond the outer limit of nine months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

¶158

It is confirmed regarding stand that the share of the schedule properties purchased by Ramkumar from Mr. G.N.Muniramappa is exactly comes within his share that is granted.

¶159

¶160

With the above observations, both the appeals

¶161

are disposed of.

¶162

Sd/JUDGE

¶163

tsn*

Smt P Rukkamma v. T K Ramkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt P Rukkamma v. T K Ramkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagappa Vs Sri Nanjunda Reddy

Nagappa Vs Nanjundaswamy

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Corporation Bank

Sri N Nanjappa Vs T K Ramkumar

Sri. N.P. Jagadeeshaiah Vs Smt. B. Mala

B Gaderappa Vs Smt.Obamma