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

2015 Supreme(Kar) 207

B.MANOHAR
Nataraja – Appellant
Versus
Padma – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:B.M. Siddappa, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:K. Murthy, Advocate

ORDER

B. Manohar, J.

1. Petitioners are defendants 4, 8(a) and 8(b) in O.S. No. 33 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Hiriyur. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16-10-2014 rejecting the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 have filed these writ petitions. The predecessors of respondents 1 to 5-Nagappa and Nagendrappa had filed the suit seeking for partition and separate possession of Vi share in respect of 'A' Schedule property and also declaration, declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of 'B' Schedule property and restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession in respect of 'B' Schedule property and for other reliefs. The contesting defendants in the suit filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. The parties went for trial. Thereafter, the Trial Court passed a decree on 17-4-2014 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants 1, 4 and 8 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. In the appeal, the defendants 1, 4 and 8 also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC f









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