1 IH THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUI. BE NCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1 5T DAY OF APRI.L 2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mt JUSflCE RAVI MALIMATH R.tA.NOSI/ 2007 5MT ARUNA AUAS SAVITHA W/O PADMANABH (PADMARA] DANDIN) AGED ABOUT 36 YRS, R/OUG 2 B-18 CHA1TANYA NAGfl DW4Ri 1 VAP 580 001 FORM ER W1FE OF LATE MAHAV1R GUTTAL 2. EMT SASH1KALA ALAS SHANKARAVVA W/O MANOHAR BASTI (KULKARN1) AGED ABOUT 58 P 0 LA 2 B18 c:HAflA.NYA NAG.AR, DHARWAR 580 000 FORMER WIFE OF LAE MAHAVEER GUT AL APPLLA’f S (BY SMTSUNITHA P KALASOOR. ADVOGATE) AND: A LA V V \ sMHASHiKAJTYA& 6 Ao t;y W/O BHARAMAPPA GUTIAL U cj4. S.INCE DECEASED BY LRS IA, SIDHARTHA ALiAS AN1L KU MAR crn annrflr’. C/fl r& ,zit ,j —u,’r , , I’ 2 GUTIAL MAJOR, Rio GUDAGERI KUNDGOL, DHARWAD 581 113. 2. NEELAVVA W/O ARVINDRAO KABADI frAJOR, R/O PLOT NOISI7, SECTOR 8 NEA.R DATIA MANDIR BELGAUM 590 016. PESPONDENTS (BY SRLMANJUNATH MELED & SRI C M KALE, ADVOTES) TillS RSA FILED U/SJ00 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE CT 12 9 2006 PASSED IN R A NO 120/1993 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN), HUBLI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT 28 8 1993 PASSED IN OSNO J6S/89 ON THE FiLE OF THE MUNSIFF AND JMFC. KUNDGOL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: This appeal is filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28M8J993 passed in OSNoJ65/1989 by the Munsiff & JMFt, Kundgol and by the judgment and decree dated 12.092006 passed in R.ANmlGO/1993 by the I Additional Clvi Judge (SrDnj, Hubii. 3 2. The case of the: appellants. is that the first respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants therein. The trial Court on contest decreed the said suit and held that the plaintiff — respondent is entitled for siit share in the suit schedule propeities. 3. On appeal to the Court of I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.OnJ, Hubli by the order dated 12 th September 2006, R.A.No.120/1993 was partly allowed declaring that the legal representative Siddharth Anilkumar is entitled for sit share of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Srnt..Sunitha P..Kalasoor, learned Counsel appearing: for the appellants contends that the Courts below have commuted an error in passing the judgment and decrr..:e. an.d hence, interterencc: is ca . Oiled for. She subm.its that the a.p *eiiate court has committed an e.rror in aIlowl.ng the suit partly and. f.lranti:ng S/Sm share. In favour 4 of the legal representative Siddhah © Anilkumar. She accordingly submits that three substantIal questions of law arise for consideration In this appeal as narrated at para 5 of the appeal memo. 5. On consideration of: both the Impugned orders, no substantlal questIons of law arise for conslderation, The appellate court whIle considerlrg the case of the parties has rightly come to the conclusIon that the share granted is fully justified In the facts and cIrcumstances of the case. While passing the said orders reliance were also placed on the various contentions urged as well as to the fact regarding the disputes. The dispute on fad would not per se amount to a substantial questIon of law that req uires Interterence of this Court. 6. In view of the findings recorded by both the courts below, I am of the... consIdered view that no 5 substantial questions of law arise for consideration In this appeal. Accordingly, the same Is rejected. No costs. A. — JUDGT. PS ‘I S HBJ: 26.07.2013 RSA.No.9112007 Perused the office note Office is directed to correct the name of the respondent No I as Madawa in the cause-title to the judgment Bss