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

2003 Supreme(Kar) 716

A.V.SRINIVASA REDDY
FAKIRAPPA – Appellant
Versus
MALLAPPA – Respondent


Advocates:
UMESH R.MALIMATH, V.F.Kumbar

A. V. SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS regular second appeal arises from the divergent findings of the courts below.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in the course of this judgment by their rank and status in the Trial Court.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs, respondents 1 to 5 filed O. S. No. 600 of 1990 against the defendants, appellants herein, seeking a decree of permanent injunction in respect of 8 acres of land in Sy. No. 12/1-AA of Karadikoppa village, Hubli Taluk. The defendants resisted the suit and filed a counter-claim for partition of the said property and allotment of 1/3rd share to them on the ground that they had purchased 3 acres from chennappa, the father of plaintiffs 3 to 5. After trial, the learned Trial judge by his judgment and decree dated 16th December, 1993 decreed the suit as prayed for. Being aggrieved, the defendants took the matter in R. A. No. 8 of 1994 before the Court below. The Court below on reappreciation of the evidence set aside the judgment and decree passed in o. S. No. 600 of 1990 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and allowed the counter-claim of the defendants. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs in o. S. No. 600 of 1990 hav












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