Back
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI, J
SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. brief facts as stated (Para 2) |
| 2. it was stated, suit was decreed (Para 3) |
| 3. it was stated, since preliminary decree (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. sri v.b.siddaramaiah, learned counsel (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. heard learned counsel and perused (Para 13) |
| 6. from above, it is seen (Para 14) |
| 7. said claim is sought to be substantiated (Para 16) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
2. Brief facts as stated are that appellant-petitioner in Misc.no.08/2005 filed for determination of mesne profits as per preliminary decree dated 28.06.1997 passed in O.S.no.1491/1992. In said petition, it was stated, petitioner had filed O.S.no.1491/1992 for partition, separate possession and mesne profits in suit properties bearing Sy.no.47/P of Kelagote village, Chitradurga, measuring 4 Acres 12 Guntas and house, from date of suit i.e., 28.11.1992.
4. It was stated, since preliminary decree had also held, petitioner entitled for mesne profits in respect of her share in suit property from date of original suit till date of possession, Miscellaneous petition under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC was filed. It was stated that suit property i.e., land bearing Sy.no.47/P of Kelagote village was fertile land with good water facility from
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
