Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, G.BASAVARAJA
D. Munner Ahmed, S/o. D. Abdul Gafoorsab, Since Deceased By His Lr’s.- Smt. D. Afrooza Begum, (W/o. D. Muneer Ahamed) – Appellant
Versus
K. Mohammed Abbas, S/o. Late Hayath Sab, Since Deceased By His Lr’s.- Smt. K. Zaibunnisa Begum, (W/o. Late K. Mohammed Abbas) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
These two appeals are filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.49/2008 and legal heirs of original defendant No.1 K.Mohammed Abbas. RFA No.100305/2017 is filed by the plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.49/2008. The connected RFA No.100306/2017 is filed by the plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.73/2010.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in O.S.No.49/2008.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, plaintiff-D.Muneer who is tracing title through one S.Mehboob Sab has filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and injunction asserting title in the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.15/2 to an extent of 4 acres 60 cents. The plaintiff is asserting that he is acquired title to an extent of 4 acres 60 cents vide registered sale deed dated 17.01.2015 executed by his vendor namely, S.Mehboob Sab.
4. On receipt of summons, original defendant K.Mohammed Abbas not only contested the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.49/2008, but filed counter suit in O.S.No.73/2010 claiming half share by way of partition and separate possession. K.Mohammed Abbas claimed that h
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
