C.S. VENKATESH Vs. A.S.C. MURTHY
LAWS(SC)-2020-2-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 07,2020

C.S. Venkatesh Appellant
VERSUS
A.S.C. Murthy Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RAMESH VS. GANGAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-669] [REFERRED TO]
P.K. JAGANNATHA RAO VS. MURALIDHAR BHAT [LAWS(KAR)-2021-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
MALLAPPA VS. VEERESH [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-1285] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA KUMAR SAHU VS. KISHAN CHAND PANJWANI [LAWS(CHH)-2020-3-114] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR SAHU VS. SAJJAN KUMAR AGRAWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2021-3-81] [REFERRED TO]
T. RAVINDRAN VS. S. ANANDHAVALLI [LAWS(MAD)-2021-11-155] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.ABDUL NAZEER,J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in RFA No.626 of 2001 dated 21.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 3308 of 1988 passed by the Civil Judge, Bangalore City.
(2.)A.S.C. Murthy was the plaintiff in the suit. He died during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, his wife Smt. Jayashree was brought on record as his legal representative. She is the first respondent in this appeal. C.S. Venkatesh, the appellant herein, was defendant No.2 in the suit. C. Sethurama Rao, was the defendant No.1 in the suit. He also died during the pendency of the suit, therefore, his wife Smt. C.S. Lalithamma was brought on record as his legal representative. She is arrayed as respondent No. 2A in this appeal. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this appeal. The parties are hereinafter referred to in their respective capacities before the trial court.
(3.)The subject matter of the suit was the property situated at Site No. 522, 17th Main Banashankari, I Stage, First Block, Srinagar, Bangalore ­ 560 050 (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule property').
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.