Manjamma v. Ramanna
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular second appeal contending failure to consider mahazar and sketches proving 12 guntas of encroachment, finding that witness admissions negated the claim of encroachment.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal is dismissed.
What the court decided
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:26089 RSA No. 703 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.703 OF 2018 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
- MANJAMMA, W/O SHIVANANJAIAH, D/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT PURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 221.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.S.RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
- RAMANNA, Digitally signed S/O LATE BOOSANNA @ RANGAIAH, by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, COURT OF RESIDING AT PURA VILLAGE, KARNATAKA KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK-572 221.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal must be admitted to frame substantial questions of law regarding alleged encroachment when the Lower Courts found no encroachment based on witness admissions.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Manjamma, W/o Shivananjaiah
- respondent
Ranna, S/o Late Boosanna
- respondent
Sannaiah @ Sannavanu, S/o Late Boosanna
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- RSA/703/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court