Chayachandranath Manikappa Hotapeti vs. Kheerappa Manikappa Hotapeti

| Decree of Appellate Court | | (0-41, R 35 CPC) H.C No. 32A | ______________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

BEFORE

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.G.SABHAHIT

Regular Second Appeal No. : 239 / 2005

Appellant/s : $\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots$

CHAYACHANDRANATH MANIKAPPA HOTAPETI AGE : 60 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O BOMMPUR ONI, HUBLI-580020. $\cdots$ $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \times \mathcal{L} \times \mathcal{L}$

$\mathcal{L} = { \mathcal{L} \in \mathcal{L} : \mathcal{L} \in \mathcal{L} }$

$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})}{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})}{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})}{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})}{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})}{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})}{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})}$

$\mathcal{L} \rightarrow \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \cup \mathcal{L} \cup \mathcal{L} \cup \mathcal{L}$

Respondent/s : $\label{eq:1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma$

1. KHEERAPPA MANIKAPPA HOTAPETI, AGE 70 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS R/O BOMMAPUR ONI, and the $HUBLI - 580020.$

$\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{1}{\mathcal{A}}\mathbf{1}{\mathcal{A}}\mathbf{1}{\mathcal{A}}\mathbf{1}{\mathcal{A}}\mathbf{1}{\mathcal{A}}\mathbf{1}{\mathcal{A}}]$

2. SMT. PADMAVATI W/O VARDHAMAN KAJURE. AGE 58 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, $R/O$ RAYANAL, TALUK : HUBLI - 580020. $\cdot$

$\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{A}}$

3. SMT. BANDEVAA MANIKAPPA HOTAPETI SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT 1 AND 2.

This Regular Second Appeal preferred against<br>the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the<br>Addl. Civil Judge {Sr.Dn. | Hubli in R.A No.92 of 2003 on its file dated 8th day of November 2004 and confirming those of the Court of the I.

ころ.

Addl. Civil Judge [Jr.Dn.] Hubli In F.D.P No.8 of 1997 on its file dated 19th day of December 2002 coming on for admission on 21st day of June 2005 in the presence of Sri.P.H.Got Khindi, Advocate for the Appellant and $\mathcal{L} \subset \mathcal{L}$ Sri. Veeresh. B. Patil, Advocate for the<br>Respondent-1 and 2. Advocate for the land of the respondent-1 and 2.

And for the reasons stated in the Judgment, it is ordered and decreed that, this Regular Second Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed. $\mathcal{L}{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}{\mathcal{A}} \mathcal{L}{\mathcal{A}} \mathcal{L}{\mathcal{A}} \mathcal{L}{\mathcal{A}} \mathcal{L}{\mathcal{A}} \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}$

And further the dismissal of the appeal shall not preclude the appellant from drawing up the preliminary decree in view of the death of 3rd respondent-mother of the respondent 1 and $2 \times \cdots \times$ and appellant, and for devolution of her share. in accordance with law. $\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{A}} \mathcal{A}^{\mathcal{A}}$

And it is further ordered and decreed that, there shall be no order as to cost in this Appeal.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 21ST JUNE 2005

DESCRIPTION OF THE SUIT PROPERTIES :

C.T.S.Ward No.4 C.S.No.1699:B Area 60 Sq.Yards open site, situated at Hubli city.

$21$ C.S.Ward No.4 C.S.No.1687 Area 34 Sq. Yards.

its $1/2$ part and

$31$ C.S.Ward No.4 C.S.No.1702 Area 44 Sq. Yards residential house property C.S.Ward No.4 C.S.No.1702 Residential house and open site these properties 1 to 3 plaintiff and defendant No.1. These properties are in possession of 1st deft. It's approximate value Rs.80,000/-

Assistant Registrar.