SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
Basavanthappa – Appellant
Versus
Basavanneppa (Since Deceased) By L. Rs – Respondent
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.—These two appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment and decree dated 23-7-2005 in O.S. Nos. 1 and 31 of 1995 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur. RA No. 118 of 2005 was filed in the Court of District Judge, Haveri. By virtue of order passed by this Court in C.P. No. 28 of 2006, RA No. 118 of 2005 was withdrawn from the Court of District Judge, Haveri for being decided along with REA No. 1275 of 2005. RA No. 118 of 2005 has been renumbered in this Court as REA No. 100106 of 2017.
2. The appellants in REA No. 1275 of 2005 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1 of 1995. The appellants in REA No. 100106 of 2017 are defendants 1, 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 31 of 1995. The case pleaded by the parties before the Trial Court has been summarised as below.
3. The subject-matter of the suit O.S. No. 1 of 1995 is 01.26 acres of land out of 4.37 acres in Re-survey No. 47/2/A+B+C+D:1 of Puratkeri Village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District (referred to as suit property). In O.S. No. 31 of 1995, the properties involved are the said agricultural land and a house property described in Schedules A and B of the plaint.
4. O.S. No. 1 of 1995 was filed for t
Narayan Bal and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others
Ashutosh Chaturvedi v. Pranov Devi alias Parani Devi and Others
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and Others
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.