A.S.PACHHAPURE
Siddagangaiah (Since Dead) By His L. Rs – Appellant
Versus
N. K. Giriraja Shetty (Since Dead) By L. R. – Respondent
A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellants have challenged the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 123 of 2009, allowing the appeal of deceased 1st respondent by setting aside the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 85 of 1989 for the relief of declaration and possession and granting a decree in favour of the 1st respondent/1(a).
2. The chronology of the events leading to the suit from which the second appeal arises are under:
One N.K. Giriraja Shetty, deceased 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit instituted seeking the relief of declaration of his title to the suit properties and for possession. The schedule annexed to the plaint reveals that Sy. No. 11 measuring 5 acres 39 guntas and Sy. No. 68/1, measuring 18 guntas both situated at Kenchanahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore, were owned by Siddagirigowda, 1st defendant in the Trial Court. The 2nd respondent herein is the third wife i.e., 4th defendant and Thopamma, 2nd defendant is the first wife of Siddagirigowda and in her lifetime, Thopamma instituted a suit for maintenance against her husband, in O.S. No. 245 of 1968. Siddagirigowda owned as many as 13 properties inclusive of the suit properties herein and his wife
Hari Lal v Balvantia and Others
Nagubai Animal and Others v B. Shama Rao and Others
Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and Others v Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs
Sanjay Verma v Manik Roy and Others
Sarwan Singh v Jagir Kaur and Another
Paras Mal and Another v Ms. Sobhag Devi and Others
Krishnaji Pandharinath v. Anusayabai and Another
Udavanath Samal v Siri Dei and Another
Lachhman Dass v Jagat Ram and Others
Muthusamy Udayar v Pichaiammal and Others
Chandra Pal v Bharat Singh and Others
Bhabani Dasya v Tulsi Ram Keot
Chandan Mall Bapna v Abdul Gani Meah
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.