SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Kar) 327

H.N.TILHARI
ISHWAR GANAPATIKYASTI – Appellant
Versus
GURULINGAPPA BASHETTAPPA KYASTI – Respondent


Advocates:
B.M.SIDDAPPA, MOHAN SHANTANA GOUDAR, RAJASHEKAR SIRI

H. N. TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. M. siddappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Rajashekar Seeri holding brief for Sri Mohan shanthana goudar, learned counsel for the respondent 2.

( 2 ) THIS revision arises from the judgment and order dated 23-12-1994 passed by the principal munsiff, gokak, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit as time barred. The trial court decided the issue as to limitation as a preliminary issue and after having found the suit to be time barred, dismissed the suit.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs' case, the plaintiffs who claim to be the sons of one ganapati bashettyappa kyasti of waderhatti and plaintiffs 3 and 4 are his brothers and all of them are cultivating land of their respective shares in the suit property. The plaintiffs claim in the suit a declaration of title to the effect that plaintiffs are kabzedars i. e. , holders in actual possession of the suit land bearing 22, waderhatti, gokak taluk. According to the plaintiffs, they were kabzedars and were paying the land revenue and the defendant/respondent who had been natives of waderhatti, claimed to be in possession of the suit land and according to the plaintiffs, defendant had been e









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top