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

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
SRI. N. HANUMANTHEGOWDA – Appellant
Versus
SMT. RAJAMMA – Respondent


Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the

learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondents

before the Trial Court by filing a suit for redemption prayed the

Court to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants,

directing the defendants No.1 to 4 to receive the mortgage

amount of Rs.1,000/- and to execute the discharged Shara on

original mortgage deed dated 22.9.1969 and deliver the vacant

possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs and

defendants No.5 to 7 and direct the defendant No.8 not to

disburse the compensation amount in respect of the suit

schedule property in favour of the defendants No.1 to 4

pending disposal of the suit.

- 4 -

3. While seeking the said relief in the plaint, the

respondents have made an averments that the husband of first

plaintiff and father of second plaintiff by name Nanjappa was

the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he was in

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and

that on 22.9.1969, the husband of first plaintiff and father of

second plaintiff by name Nanjappa and the husband of

defendant No.5 and father of defendants No.6 and 7 by nam

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