ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢PÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ,

vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ

Cgï.Cgï.n.(C).(UÀÄ) 181/2004-05

ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ « JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ
ZÀ£Àߧ¸ÀªÀAiÀÄå PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀÄ

ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ®PÀë÷äªÀÄä PÉÆÃA ¯ÉÃmï gÉêÀtÚ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸À°è¹zÀ

°TvÀ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ:-

1. UÀÄ©â vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¤lÆÖgÀÄ ºÉÆç½ CAPÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 19/9

gÀ°è£À d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®vÀB UÉÆêÀiÁ¼À d«ÄãÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀ
¸ÀAUÀwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ
ªÀÄÄaÑgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

2. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß f.JA.J¥sï 7/1956-57 gÀAvÉ 3£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀªÀw

¥ÀwAiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¨sÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ §zÀÝ
ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄAdÆjAiÀiÁzÀzÀÄÝ PÉêÀ® gÉêÀtÚ ©£ï
gÉêÀtÚ¹zÀÝ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæªÀ®èzÉ CzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ J®èjUÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ
¸ÀAUÀwAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉüÀzÉ «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄaÑgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

3. ¸ÀzÀj ¨sÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄÄ 15 ªÀµÀð ¥ÀgÀ¨ÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀzÀAvÉ £À£Àß ¥ÀªÀw ¥ÀwAiÀÄ

ºÉ¸Àj£À°è £ÀªÀÄä C«¨sÀPÀÛ PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ d«ÄãÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 15 ªÀµÀð
¥ÀgÀ¨ÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀzÀAvÉ «¢¹gÀĪÀ µÀgÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ¥ÀªÀw ¥ÀwAiÀÄÄ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj ºÁUÉÆAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ ¥ÀvÀæ
¸Àȶ×AiÀiÁVzÀÝgÉ CzÀÄ £ÁªÀiÁ̪À¸ÉÛ ¥ÀvÀæªÁVzÀÄÝ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀgÀ¨ÁgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨sÁ»gÀªÀÇ C®èzÉ £ÀªÀÄä EvÀgÉ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀjUÉ ¢PÀÄÌ
vÀ¦à¸À®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. Sub-rule 6(a)(i) of Rule 43(1)
of the Land Revenue Rules 1888 which governed the grant of land in
question prohibits the alienation of the land for a period of 15 years from
the date of the grant and since the land in question was said within 15 years
from the date of the grant apart from the prohibition contained in the order
of grant that the land in question should not be alienated.

4. ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæ¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30-05-1966 gÀ°è PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ

DVzÉ JAzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃT¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Áé¢üãÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV
ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ w½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨sÁ»gÀ CA±ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ,
CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ¥ÀºÀt £ÉÆAzÁªÀt PÉÊvÀ¦àgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
C¸ÀA§ªÀ¤ÃAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

5. PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ Cfð

EzÀÝgÀÆ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ JA.Dgï. 4/2004-05 CAVÃPÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
¸ÀĽî¤AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

6. ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ°è vÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ªÉÄîä£À« PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîä£À«

¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ vÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ªÁådå PÁgÀt ¸ÀĽî¤AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ
PÁgÀtUÀ½UÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼À C£ÀĸÁgÀªÁV ªÉÄïÁä£À« wgÀ¸ÁÌgÀPÉÌ
AiÉÆÃUÀåªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

7. AiÀiÁªÉǧ⠪ÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄîä£À« ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ ªÁådå

PÁgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄÆ® ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaÑqÀzÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ
w½¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. CAvÀºÀ ªÀÄÄZÀÄÑ«PÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÉÆøÀªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ
C®è £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÀÆÌ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrzÀAvÉ JAzÀÄ ±ÉæõÀ× £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wæð£À
¹zÁÝAvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. In Arunima Baruah vs
Union of India & Ors 2007 (6) scc 120 “It is trite law that so as to enable the
court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be
of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would
disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material
for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof
would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the
relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis
between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary
jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty
hands.”

8. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ ¥ÁnðUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÆøÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ

«ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaÑqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, vÀ¥ÀÅöà «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
ªÉÆøÀªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸À®èzÀÄ JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀĦæêÀiï PÉÆÃmïð F PɼÀPÀAqÀ
PÉù£À°è «¸ÁÛgÀªÁV »ÃUÉ ºÉýzÉ CzÀgÀ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ F PɼÀUÉ G¯ÉèÃT¹zÉ. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of
Hon’ble court the observations of Supreme court in THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH & ANOTHER V. T.SURYACHANDRA RAO, (2006) 1 LW 547 at
pg.551 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: "
"Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never
dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes
the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a
response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well
settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent
misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A
fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man
into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on
falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he
knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from
which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud
on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to
deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the
transaction void ab initio.

9. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ §gÀÄ ªÁådåPÁgÀ£ÀÄ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaÑqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ

JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ¸ÀĦæêÀiï PÉÆÃnð£À wæð£À CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court
the observations of Supreme court in S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU V.
JAGANNATH AND OTHERS, AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 853, wherein it is
held as follows:- 'The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between
the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. It can
be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood
has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any
stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to
produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the
litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the
other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on
the opposite party.'

10. zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå

±ÉæõÀ× £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wæð£À ¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¹zÉ.
Observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji
Ketkar v. Mahomed Haji latif and Ors. (1968) 3 S.C.R.: Even if the burden of
proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he
withhold important documents in his possession which can throw light on
the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring
to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best
evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues
in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof.

11. zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ°è£À µÀævÀÄÛ G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁr

ªÀiÁrgÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀgÁgÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÀÅ C®èzÉ zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ µÀgÀvÀÄÛ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁ£ÀƤ£À «ÄÃjzÀÝ®è JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä It is kindly brought to the kind
attention of Hon’ble court the observations of Laxmiamma v State o/
Karnataka and Others, AIR 1983 Kant. 237. Section 10 of the Transfer of
Property Act, or the rule against perpetuities do not apply to Government
grants. Hence, a condition prohibiting alienation for ever or a permanent
restraint on alienation of granted lands if authorised by law regulating such
grants, is not void but a valid condition.

12. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà RjâzÁgÀ£ÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄ RjâAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄ£Àß eÁUÀævÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

ªÀ»¸À¨ÉÃQgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. eÁUÀævÉ ªÀ»¸ÀzÀªÀ¤UÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ gÀPÀëuÉ ¹UÀ¯ÁgÀzÀÄ. It is kindly
brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court the observations of Mallappa
Adiveppa Hadapad v Smt. Rudrawa and Others, ILR 2003 KAR 1774. Where
transferee has not made enquiries into title of transferor and has merely
acted upon such entry in land revenue record, which is not evidence of title,
he cannot be said to have taken reasonable care or acted in good faith to
claim protection of provision against dispossession by real owner of
property.

13. PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ ¤dªÉà DVzÀÝ°è PÁ£ÀƤ£À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ CzÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉUÉ
eÉ.¹è¥ï £ÀAvÉ gÀªÁ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, CzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨sÁ»gÀvɬÄAzÀ CAzÉÃ
wgÀ¸ÁÌgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÀºÀ wgÀ¸ÀÌöÈvÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ²ß¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
FUÀ ¥ÀªÀw ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ §zÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¸À®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. C°èAzÀ
E°èªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀĪÀÄä¤zÀÄÝ FUÀ ªÀÄÄAzÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁR¯É ¸Àȶ׹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ
JA§ÄzÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of
Hon’ble court the observations of Seshumull M. Shah v Sayed Abdul Rashid &
Others, ILR 1991 Kar. 2857, AIR 1991 Kant 273, 1991 (1) KarLJ 320 If a
person creates false documents in his own favour without the
knowledge of the real owner, that cannot by any stretch of logic be
construed as having been done with the express -or implied consent of the
real owner.

14. F PÉù£À°è ªÁådå ¥ÁægÀA§zÀ vÁjÃR£ÀÄß ¸ÀļÀÄî £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 1966 gÀ°è

wgÀ¸ÀÌöÈvÀ UÉÆArgÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ JA.Dgï ¥Àæ²ß¸ÀzÉ FUÀ ¥ÀªÀw ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ §A¢gÀĪÀ
JA.Dgï ¥Àæ²ß¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. It is kindly brought to the
kind attention of Hon’ble court the observations of Ramesh Kumar Vs.
Kesho Ram [1992 Supp. (2) SCC 623 where this Court observed as follows : -
"The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the
parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis.
But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law
which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or
on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not
precluded from taking a `cautious cognizance of the subsequent changes of
fact and law to mould the relief."

15. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court the

observations of Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar Vs. Ramaratan Bapu & Ors
(2004) 7 SCC 181"material facts" are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause
of action or defendant's defence depends. Broadly speaking, all primary or
basic facts which are necessary either to prove the cause of action by the
plaintiff or defence by the defendant are "material facts". Material facts are
facts which, if established, would give the petitioner the relief asked for. But
again, what could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts
of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down.

16. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court the

observations of M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And
Anr [(2004) 6 SCC 254] The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “Cause of
action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the
suitor to allege and prove constitutes the cause of action. Cause of action is
not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter
alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court.
Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the
defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action.
Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause
of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be
rejected summarily.”

17. F PÉù£À ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ£À £ÀqÀªÀ½PɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀéµÀÖªÁUÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ,

zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ d«Ää£À PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ªÀåxÀð ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀߪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä
ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀߪÁVzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ eÁjªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊ©lÄÖ
AiÀÄxÁ ¹Üw ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¢zÉ. It is kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble
court the observations of Tulsa v. Durghatiya [(2008) 4 SCC 520], this court
held: "11. At this juncture reference may be made to Section 114 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). The provision refers to
common course of natural events, human conduct and private business. The
court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have
occurred. Reading the provisions of Sections 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act
together, it is clear that the act of marriage can be presumed from the
common course of natural events and the conduct of parties as they are
borne out by the facts of a particular case.
18. FUÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ ¥ÁægÀA§¢AzÀ¯Éà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨sÁ»gÀªÉÇà CAvÀºÀzÀÝ£ÀÄß eÁj
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÁådå PÁgÀt ºÀÄqÀÄQPÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ. It is kindly brought to the kind
attention of Hon’ble court the observations of C. Albert Morris Vs. K.
Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228, Court held that a right in law
exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. In Mangal Prasad Tamoli
(dead) by LRs. Vs. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by LRs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC
422, Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all
further proceedings consequent thereto will be non-est and have to be
necessarily set aside.

19. PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨sÁ»gÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è vÀgÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. It is

kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court the observations of
Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim (2001) 5 SCC 629 Where a party's
claim is not founded on valid grounds, the party cannot claim equity. A party
that claims equity must come before the court with clean hands as equities
have to be properly worked out between parties to ensure that no one is
allowed to have their pound of flesh vis-`-vis the others unjustly.

¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß

ªÀeÁUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ: 04-10-2010
¸ÀܼÀ: vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ

3 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢

3 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ