Muniraju Since Dead by His Lrs Smt. Lakshmamma v. Sri H L Jayaramu

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2026RFA/1026/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Permanent injunction; suit for bare injunction; encroachment; excess allotment beyond approved layout plan; cancellation of sale deeds requires separate suit; maintainability of injunction suit without title; HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society layout; Sy.No.56/1 Nagasandra; 23 guntas retained land; 1 acre 22 guntas acquired; 2 guntas kharab; conflicting decrees passed same day; O.S.No.5874/1997; O.S.No.2043/2007; Section 96 CPC; RFA dismissed; Karnataka High Court 2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree passed by the trial court (permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the scheduled sites) confirmed. ¶¶153

Muniraju Since Dead by His Lrs Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Sri H L Jayaramu — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶153

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties and is justified in granting the relief of permanent injunction?

¶¶133

Court's answer

Endorsed the Trial Court's observation that if the defendants want to prove that the respondent-Society had no power to allot sites to the plaintiffs measuring east to west more than 50 ft (in excess of the approved layout plan), they are required to file a separate suit against the Society as well as the plaintiffs for cancellation of the sale deeds, and such questions cannot be gone into in a suit for bare injunction; no error was found in that conclusion, particularly in view of the Society's clarification regarding site measurements, which was not in dispute.

¶¶147

Ratio / Principle

Rejected the contention that the decree in the defendants' earlier suit O.S.No.5874/1997, passed on the very same day, created a conflicting or anomalous situation, since even in that suit there was no allegation that the respondent-Society or the allottees encroached upon or occupied any portion of the defendants' land.

¶¶152

Key takeaways

With the admitted and unquestioned position that the defendants are in possession of their 23 guntas of land and the respondent-Society is entitled to 1 acre 22 guntas, this Court saw no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.ratio¶¶152

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.G.S. Kamal, J., 14.01.2026), RFA No. 1026 of 2012 (S.96 CPC) by the defendants against the decree dated 19.03.2012 of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S.No.2043/2007 granting the plaintiff-allottees of the HMT Employees' Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. a permanent injunction over five residential sites in its layout at Nagasandra/Nelakadhirenahalli Village. The defendants, successors of Devamma @ Chikkadevamma who retained 23 guntas in Sy.No.56/1 (1 acre 22 guntas, including 2 guntas kharab, having been acquired for the Society), contended that sites were allotted in excess of the approved layout plan (Ex.D4) measurements so as to encroach on their retained land, and relied on their own decree in O.S.No.5874/1997 passed the same day. Held: (i) a grievance that the Society conveyed beyond its entitlement had to be pursued in a separate suit against the Society and the allottees for cancellation of the sale deeds and could not be canvassed in a suit for bare injunction — no error in the Trial Court so holding, especially given the Society's undisputed clarification on site measurements; (ii) the same-day decree caused no anomaly, the earlier suit containing no encroachment plea; (iii) with the parties' respective extents (23 guntas and 1 acre 22 guntas) admitted, there was no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed; decree confirmed. Anathula Sudakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 was cited in argument only and not engaged with.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1026 OF 2012 (INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MUNIRAJU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶11

1(a) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAJU M.N., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶12

1(b) KUM. LAKSHMIDEVI M., D/O LATE MANIRAJU M.N., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶13

1(c) KUM. KAVYA N.M., D/O LATE MUNIRAJU M.N., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

1(d) SRI. HARISH N.M., S/O LATE MUNIRAJU M.N., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶16

SL NOS. 1(a) TO 1(d) R/AT NO.02 MUNI MALLAPPA BUILDING NAGASANDRA POST NAGASANDRA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 073.

¶17

SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O SRI LATE MUNIMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT OPP. SREE DURG HARDWARE SHOP NO. 994, H.M.T. LAYOUT, KRS GOWDAEXTENSION,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NAGASANDRA MAIN ROAD,

¶22

BANGALORE - 560 073.

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K. NARASIMHA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE FOR A1; SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY., ADVOCATE FOR A2)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SRI H L JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O H.S. LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH R/AT NO. A-137, SECTOR II, HMT COLONY,

¶27

BANGALORE - 560 013.

¶28

SRI. SHIVANNA S/O TUKARAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO. W- 604, SECTOR III, HMT COLONY, BANGALORE - 560 013.

¶29

SMT. K.S. PARVATHAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶30

3(a) SRI. THEJESHWAR S/O LATE PALANIYAPPA MAIN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.41/1, 13^TH CROSS WEST PARK ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶31

SRI. V.N. HARENDRA S/O LATE V NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT BWSSB QUARTERS, II CROSS,9TH MAIN, BTM 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶32

SMT. B.H. NAGARATHNA W/O LATE H.B. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO. 105, 1^ST MAIN ROAD,

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

5^TH CROSS, SARASWATHI NAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR,

¶36

BANGALORE - 560 040./

¶37

SMT. SHYALAJA DAYANANDA W/O D.A. DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT BWSSB QUARTERS, 2^ND CROSS, 9TH MAIN, BTM 2^ND STAGE,

¶38

BANGALORE - 7676

¶39

THE SECRETARY H.M.T. EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY (REG) JALAHALLI

¶40

BENGALURU - 560 031.

¶41

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶42

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DODDABALLAPURA AND BENGALURU SUB-DIVISION VISWESWARAIAH TOWERS PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. V. VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R3(a), R5 & R6;

¶45

SRI. B.N. PRAKASH & MAYANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R8;

¶46

MS. AMARAVATHI H.R., AGA FOR R9; V/O DATED 12.09.2013 NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶47

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.03.2012 PASSED IN O.S.2043/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XI-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶52

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶53

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶54

This appeal is by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2012 passed in O.S.No.2043/2007 on the file of XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), by which the said suit for permanent injunction has been decreed.

¶55

Subject matter of the suit are the following five residential sites :

¶56

SCHEDULE-A

¶57

All that piece and parcel of property bearing site No:1063, HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, has layout Nagasandra Nelakadhirenahally Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore Village formed the in and North Taluk, measuring East to West 71+68/2 feet and North to South 30 feet and being bounded on the

¶58

East by: Road,

¶59

West by: Private Property,

¶60

North by: Site No:1064,

¶61

South by: Site No:1062.

¶62

SCHEDULE-B

¶63

All that piece and parcel of property bearing site No:1056, HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, has formed and the layout in Nagasandra Village Nelakadhirenahally Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to

¶64

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

West 84+82/2 feet and North to South 30 feet and being bounded on the

¶67

East by: Road, West by: Private Property, North by: Site No:1057, South by: Site No:1055.

¶68

SCHEDULE-C

¶69

All that piece and parcel of property bearing site No:1058, HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, has Layout Nagasandra Village Nelakadhirenahally Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore formed the in and North Taluk, measuring East to West 78+80/2 feet and North to South 30 feet and being bounded on the

¶70

East by: Road, West by: Private Property, North by: Site No:1059, South by: Site No:1057.

¶71

SCHEDULE-D

¶72

All that piece and parcel of property bearing site No:1064. HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, has formed layout Nagasandra Village Nelakadhirenahally Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 68+67/2 feet and North in to South 30 feet and being bounded on the

¶73

East by: Road, West by: Private Property, North by: Site No:1065, South by: Site No:1063.

¶74

SCHEDULE-E

¶75

All that piece and parcel of property bearing site No:1054. HMT Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd, has formed the

¶76

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

In Village and layout Nagasandra Nelakadhirenahally Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 85+83.9/2 feet and North to South 30 feet and being bounded on the

¶80

East by: Road, West by: Private Property, North by: Site No:1055, South by: Site No:1053.

¶81

Case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the HMT Employees' Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'Society') had formed a layout consisting of sites of various dimensions in the lands situated at Nagasandra Village and Nelakadirenahalli Village, Yeshwantapur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. That the plaintiffs were allotted schedule sites and pursuant thereof, deeds of sale have also been executed by the society in their favour. Names of the plaintiffs have been mutated in the revenue records and they have been paying the property tax. Thus, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the scheduled sites as absolute owners thereof.

¶82

That the defendants are the residents of the neighboring village and are strangers to the schedule sites. Without having any right, title or interest thereof, making

¶83

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled sites by the plaintiffs. That on 29.01.2007, defendants attempted to trespass into the scheduled sites and tried to form a road thereon, which illegal act was resisted by the plaintiffs. They also approached the Jurisdictional Police by filing a complaint. Again on 05.03.2007, defendants attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled sites by the plaintiffs, constraining the plaintiffs to approach the Court by filing the suit.

¶87

Defendants in the written statement have pleaded ignorance about HMT Employees' Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., forming any layout consisting of sites in Nagasandra Village and Nelakadirenahalli Village as claimed by the plaintiffs. They have also pleaded ignorance about the said Society allotting the scheduled sites in favour of the plaintiffs. It is contented that land in Sy.No.56/1 originally belonged to one Devamma @ Chikkadevamma. An extent of 1 acre 22 guntas including 2 guntas of kharab land was acquired by the Government and an extent of 23 guntas of land was retained by said Devamma, which is situated on the North-Western

¶88

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

portion of the layout formed by the HMT Employees' Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. That after the demise of said Devamma, her son Munimallappa became owner of the said 23 guntas of land in Sy.No.56/1. After his demise, defendants being his son and wife of late Munimallappa succeeded to the said 23 guntas of land and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. That they have put up residential houses on the said 23 guntas of land and they are in possession of the same. It is further contended that children of defendant No.2 are in occupation of the said 23 guntas of land by putting up residential houses. That the Society has no manner of right or interest over the said 23 guntas of land in Sy.No.56/1 belonging to the plaintiffs. Allegation of interference by the defendants has been denied. Considering the pleadings, trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

¶92

'' 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove their lawful possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit?

¶93

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have interfered with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties?

¶94

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?

¶95

4. What order or decree? ''

¶96

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs as PW1 and PW2 and they have produced 46 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P46. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defendants as DW1 and DW2 and 12 documents have been produced and marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D12.

¶100

The Trial Court on appreciation of the pleading and evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and consequently decreed the suit as sought for, restraining the defendants by way of permanent injunction from interfering plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the schedule sites.

¶101

Being aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court.

¶102

Learned counsel Sri. K. Narasimha Murthy appearing for the appellant No.1 submitted that, the trial Court committed an error in granting the relief of permanent injunction, particularly when the defendants had also filed a suit in O.S.No.5874/1997 against the HMT Employees' Co-operative

¶103

House Building Society Ltd., which was also tried and adjudicated by the very same Court granting the relief of

¶104

10 -

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and that the judgment and decree in both the suits in O.S.No.5874/1997 and O.S.No.2043/2007 were passed on the very same day, giving rise to conflicting and anomalous situations; that there is no dispute of the fact that defendants in the present suit who are the plaintiffs in the said suit in O.S.No.5874/1997 are in possession and enjoyment of 23 guntas of land, while the Society had acquired only an extent of 1 acre 22 guntas of land; that the allotment of schedule sites in favour of the plaintiffs is contrary to the measurement shown in the approved layout plan. In that, the measurement of the sites shown in the allotment made in favor of the plaintiffs is in excess of the measurements shown in the approved layout plan which has resulted in plaintiffs in the present suit interfering with the property of the defendants. That the Society could not have allotted or conveyed the right in excess of what it possessed. The impugned judgment and decree of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs in the present suit has therefore caused extreme hardship and prejudice to the defendants; that the evidence produced by the defendants has not been appreciated properly by the trial Court. Plaintiffs are

¶108

11 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

therefore not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, he seeks for allowing the appeal.

¶112

Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the appellant No.2 taking this Court through the averments made in the written statement and the documents,

¶113

more particularly Ex.D3-Photograph as well as the written statement filed in O.S.No.5874/1997 produced at Ex.D6 submits that the existence of conservancy and the houses on the western side of the land acquired by the defendant-Society is not in dispute. That if injunction as granted is allowed to continue, with the measurements of the sites shown in the schedule to the plaint, the same would amount to they interfering into the land belonging to the defendants. He also refers to the deposition of PW2, who is the President of the Society, to submit that even according to the said witness, the layout is formed within the boundaries and extent of the land which is acquired and therefore allotment of the site in excess of the said land was illegal and unjustified and the plaintiffs,

¶114

therefore did not have any right, title or interest over the scheduled sites. That in the light of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy

¶115

12 -

¶116

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

(dead) by lrs and others¹ , the suit for bare junction as filed

¶119

under the facts and circumstances of the case was not maintainable. Therefore, he seeks for allowing of the appeal.

¶120

In response, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents submits that allotment of the site in favour of the plaintiffs not being in dispute, the defendants cannot now deny the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. He submits that it is not the case of the defendants that any extent of their 23 guntas of land has been utilized by the Society. But for disputing the extent of the measurement of the sites with reference to the approved layout plan produced at Ex.D4, Defendants have neither pleaded nor placed any evidence on record in justification of their claim of their land being utilized by the Society. Therefore, he submits in the absence of any denial to the right, title and interest of the defendants, a suit for bare injunction was perfectly maintainable and the same has been rightly allowed by the trial Court warranting no interference.

¶121

1 (2008) 4 SCC 594

¶122

13 -

¶123

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

Sri. B.N. Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent

¶126

No.7 drawing attention of this Court to the memo dated 10.08.2023, filed along with certain documents enclosed therewith submits that there is no justification in the allegations made by the defendants that the respondentSociety had allotted the sites in favour of the plaintiffs in excess of its entitlement. He refers to the layout plan and submits that in the original layout plan, two rows of the sites were formed each measuring 30''X50'' on the one side and 30''X40'' on the other side. All that is done is merging of sites measuring 30''X40'' of one row with the sites measuring 30''X50'' of the other row. He submits that a modified layout plan has been submitted to the BDA and the BDA has permitted for allotment of the sites with aforementioned modified measurements. Thus, there is no violation of the original approved layout plan and the Society is not allotting any site more than what is sanctioned in the original sanction plan. Therefore he submits that allegation of Society allotting the sites more than the measurement mentioned in the approved layout plan is untenable and no portion of the sites is falling within the boundaries of the land claimed by the defendants.

¶127

14 -

¶128

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

Therefore, he submits that allegation of Society interfering with the possession of the property of the defendants is untenable. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

¶131

Heard and perused the records.

¶132

The point that arises for consideration:

¶133

(1) Whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties and is justified in granting the relief of permanent injunction?

¶134

There is no dispute of the fact that an extent of 1 acre 22 guntas of land including 2 guntas of kharab land forming part of Sy.No.56/1 of Nagasandra Village which originally belonged to one Smt. Devamma @ Chikkadevamma was acquired for the benefit of the HMT Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. There is also no dispute of the fact that an extent of 23 guntas of land was retained by said Smt. Devamma. Respondent-Society has admittedly formed a residential layout as per Ex-D4 and the sites subject matter of the suit are marked as Ex.D4(A). Perusal of which would indicate that there are two rows of sites. Sites on the eastern row appear to be measuring 30''X50''. Sites on the western row

¶135

15 -

¶136

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

appear to be measuring 30''X40''. There is no dispute by either

¶139

of the parties to the aforesaid three aspects of the matter.

¶140

The dispute raised by the defendants/appellants

¶141

herein is to the actual extent of the sites being claimed by the plaintiffs. According to learned counsel for the

¶142

defendants/appellants, when Ex.D4 a approved layout plan permits formation of a site with a specific measurement of 30''X40'' or 30''X50'', as the case may be, the respondentSociety ought not to have allotted the site in excess of the measurement provided thereof. Which according to them has resulted in plaintiffs encroaching upon the area falling within the boundaries of 23 guntas of land retained by one Devamma @ Chikkadevamma.

¶143

The trial Court at paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the impugned judgment has adverted to these contentious issues. It has also taken note of the suit in O.S.No.5874/1997 filed by the defendants, which was disposed of on the very same day. It has observed that the plaintiffs in justification of their right, title, interest and possession have produced deeds of sale at Ex.P2 to Ex.P6. Possession certificates at Ex.P7 to Ex.P11 and

¶144

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶145

HC-KAR

¶146

the dimensions shown therein, tallying with the dimensions mentioned in the deeds, having thus appreciated the evidence has come to the conclusion that plaintiffs have indeed proved their right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property for the purpose of grant of permanent injunction.

¶147

It also observed that if at all the defendants wants to prove that the respondent-Society had no power to allot the sites to the plaintiffs measuring east to west more than 50 ft, they are required to file a separate suit against the respondentsociety as well as the plaintiffs for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the respondent-society in favour of the plaintiffs, and the said questions cannot be gone into in a suit for bare injunction. No error can be found with the said observation and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, more particularly, in the light of clarification with regard to the measurement of the sites offered by the respondent-society as noted above, which is not in dispute.

¶148

Reference to the judgment passed in the earlier suit filed by the defendants in O.S.No.5874/1997 to contend that the same has led to anomalous situation is also of no avail,

¶149

17 -

¶150

NC: 2026:KHC:2266 RFA No. 1026 of 2012

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

inasmuch as, even in the said suit except alleging interference by the respondent-Society, there is no whisper with regard to respondent-Society or the allottees encroaching upon or occupying any portion of the land belonging to the defendants/appellants. Admitted fact as noted above, of defendants being in possession of their properties measuring 23 guntas of land and the respondent-society being entitled for 1 acre and 22 guntas of land not being questioned, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶153

No error or illegality can be found with. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed . Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is confirmed.

¶154

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶155

¶156

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Muniraju Since Dead by His Lrs Smt. Lakshmamma v. Sri H L Jayaramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniraju Since Dead by His Lrs Smt. Lakshmamma v. Sri H L Jayaramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt P Uma Hemareddy Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Renuka C @ Renuka Sharma @ Renuka Shastri Vs the State of Karnataka

Baldwin Boys High School Vs Karnataka State Commission

Sri. Kousar Ali Shaik Vs the Karnataka State Waqf Board

Sri. K.T. Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Brigade Enterprises Limited Vs the State of Karnataka