✦ Karnataka High Court · 08 Mar 2012

SMT. GOURAWWA v. SRI. APPA 5/0

Case Details Karnataka High Court · 08 Mar 2012
Court
Karnataka High Court
Decided
08 Mar 2012
Length
2,070 words

Summary

A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.

Precedent status

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

Original judgment text

Judgment

1. ‘ I b I_I ‘9IF4RFJ\. ;s’..a.nt. OR!’F .:.P’ ,e (IYCT”H’I ) 1 1 ‘.V. ! J1) ‘ 1 1 .!J! !J-JL ‘h - (iF ; C. ‘_:.i’r, t’ _‘ 1 IiF*’sJrJI. j_, ‘)T 4 I i.’- T’ ‘ DV.SHYLENDRA KUMAR. -C & hA). ) £ a D C ) 2 0 o 0 ( 0 ( C c D C t r a 0 e4 0 ( 2 0 0 — 0 ( 0 ( — ’ T C — D C E D C t r ) C J t D C L — C D C L C a 2 0 a 2 0 ) ’ T 4 V — . l C C C ± r 2 0 D C n — a D C U C o 0 ) 9 0 a t r n 0 ( 0 i C 5 Q T C F r 2 0 a a 0 a — + r D C O C 4 D C J t — r ) 2 a L C O ) U U C ) 9 ) C ’ T C ( — O t 1 N 4 0 0 D C n e ) 2 L C o 2 0 a 0 ( ) 2 ) C ’ 0 ) C 2 0 0 ( — , C D C ) 9 0 ’ ) 2 D C D P 0 a 0 t r ’ 0 D C ) o C ) 2 ) 2 0 D C ) 2 t r L C D C < > ) i a 0 D C D C i D — 0 — ) ) 2 — ) — 9 — 0 0 ) C — L C ’ o o a . L C - “ D C 0 i t r 2 0 ) U 0 ( a h t L C D C a ) — 9 D C a L C a t r 4 ) 2 ‘ ) 2 0 D C L C 0 ( D C 2 0 n r 4a 2 0 0 a a ) 2 D C i i ) 2 L C a n 9 a a 2 0 D D C — ) g a 0 z D C ) U ) t • o O l Q C 0 ( C m , 0 — ‘ 2 0 D C t r , i — D C ) 2 i _ 4 O D — 0 t C ) 9 ) 9 2 0 D C ) 9 ) 9 ) 9 a ‘ a — t r l — C ) 2 — — ) 2 1 x — ’ c C ’ c C a 2 0 a 0 L C a 2 0 o ) 2 o 0 L C 0 4 4 N ° i o . + N a O D C o 0 ‘ ’ r i ) 9 . 0 ( 2 0 7 acres 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.47 of Naganur lCD. Village being half portion of comprised n S Mo 47 and which tas ownersi p f ssor in pondns 4 nd

4. r petitio tie third

o litigat a hile the R spondeni. No.2 1 as before this Court in the earlier two rounds to get the orders passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting his claim for tenancy rights and the matter ha g rem ded bo I I e ccasio md t nd T ‘he t t d Reap name fg the cultivat column as c it appointed a namely O1.03.1Q7; and prior P’ that, the land lords also affirmed that as onli the 21aL respondent who nas rultnaring th na aP t C a D C — P * 4 > t P ) 4 ) U 4 > - P 4 > - — ) ) I r C a t a a ) I C a a p p ) C Z r C Z . r t i g a p p p p ) — t P P o a — a r C ° P t P n e t P a 3 0 a r r C a C 0 . ) C r C “ : 0 t P a a 4 > ) C L 4 : 4 > 4 > 1 4 . a a — r L C a 3 4 > a 3 a a p t P 1 4 n e a : 4 > 4 > 4 v r a + - r 3 3 4 a r C p D C 0 ) C a 1 4 g a r 4 > C - t C 9 — 0 a r C r C a p t P P a 0 t P - t P 1 4 a — 3 0 3 3 4 a 3 4 — P 9 3 3 a 3 0 t r 1 4 ) C t P ) C L C p p ) l C r C t P n e P a t P D C 4 P r C a p P . p p ) U p p ) C — ) C o — a - . , n e r C a 0 a 0 D C ) C < ) 4 a r C r C • 0 _ ) C * r . 2 4 c a L E i a L E & r F a a D C ) C r F — 2 a a ) C r C < a ° r C ) C 9 L C r C a 2 t P _ P L C a p n e t r n e — t P 1 4 ) C ) C t P t P a a < > p g . • C 3 3 0 a d a i g P 9 1 4 z 0 a a d l . 9 r a 4 > ) ) C r C i g t P ) C 1 p < 0 t P ° ) C i p ± r r * r p p r t a ) C a 0 P s t 2 F a 9 a E a J ! q 7 c O D C L c a D C 0 L E ) I L Z t r C ? C 9 r F t P 0 : a a — 2 1 4 a t r 9 2 ) C r a t r r C n e — 3 3 ( a 0 p p 3 0 3 0 a ) C n e a a r C a a r C o ) C ” 3 t P a 9 a a : B D C ) C . D C L C D C ( ) C L C D C . — o t L C D C ) C B L C I e ( o c . - D C ) C - o t ç a D C < D C L C o t 5 o t o t ) C I : : B D C . ) C D C a — . ) C \ J , L — 6 t r ) C . L C D C ) C D C o t 9 — . D P < D C — 9 L C D C r r D C ) C o t 5 o t L C D C I < D C : 9 D C o t o ç 0 : 9 ‘ r9 C a p C C d p — O D C L C D C D C B o t L C j p 0 — 9 n — L C D C ) C B L C D C D C L C — — L C D C o t D C i t t r D C D C ) C ) C 9 S D C ) C — D C D C ) C D C ç a D C ) C ’ l f : D C — D C D C D C 0 ) C j r f L C 9 D C : 9 D C z D C Q 1 C o t + r D C ) C t r D C t r : 9 D C o t : 9 D C ) C ) C 6 D C a D C B ) l C 2 0 . j * L ) l C 1 1 % r 7 ( d a p - F t r L C I

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments