Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi, vs Narayan Maruti Mayekar on 3 August, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi, vs Narayan Maruti Mayekar on 3 August, 2012

Bench: Ajit J.Gunjal

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

             CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

      DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJAL

     WRIT PETITION NO.61030/2012 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

Shri Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi,
Aged about 51 years,
Presently at Parappana Agrahara
Central Jail, Bangalore.                ...PETITIONER

      (By Sri. Mallikarjunaswamy Hiremath, Adv.)

AND:

1.    Shri Narayan Maruti Mayekar,
      Aged about 49 years,
      Occ: Business,
      R/o. Vidyanagar,
      Khanapur,
      Dist: Belgaum.

2.    Shri Imran Rafiqueahamed
      Talikoti,
      Age: Major,
      Occ: Business,
      R/o. Nandgadi Chawl,
      Station Road,
      Khanapur, Dist: Belgaum.

3.    Smt. Shahida @ Sayeeda,
      W/o. Rafiqueahamed Talikoti,
      Age: Major,
      Occ: Business,
                           :2:



     R/o. Nandgadi Chawl,
     Station Road,
     Khanapur, Dist: Belgaum.

4.   The Town Panchayat Committee,
     Khanapur,
     Rep. by its Chief Officer,
     T.P.C. Khanapur.

5.   Shri Abdul Azim Ladsab Telgi,
     Aged about 49 years,
     Occ: Agriculture & Business,
     R/o. Vidyanagar,
     Khanapur, Dist: Belgaum.          ... RESPONDENTS

     (By Sri. Jagadish Patil, Adv. for R-2)
                              ....

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash
the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Khanapur in O.S. No.185/2008 at
Annexure-D and consequently dismiss I.A. No.9 and etc.

      This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, the court made the following:

                        ORDER

The 1st respondent has filed a suit seeking for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequential relief of injunction against the respondents. The petitioner files an application seeking to come on record on the premise that he has title to the properties. The claim of the :3: petitioner is on the basis of a gift deed stated to have been executed in his favour.

2. No document is forthcoming to show that the gift deed is executed in his favour. I am of the view that the question of the petitioner being a party-defendant to the proceedings does not arise inasmuch as the plaintiff is a dominus litus and is entitled to choose his opponent. If the petitioner has any right, he can go before any other appropriate forum. The impugned order does not call for interference.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court