Sri Bhaira S/Okalaiah vs K N Jayashankar S/O Kashi Nanjunda Setty on 9 June, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Bhaira S/Okalaiah vs K N Jayashankar S/O Kashi Nanjunda Setty on 9 June, 2009

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

1 W,P.l325$f(39

IN THE HIGH coum 0? %(ARNA"§"AKA, BANMeA.LQRé[j  ' T4    A 

DATED THIS ms 09*" DAY   .>;:;%o'9_'  "    [ 7

BEFORE  V  
"me HON'8i.E EV£R.JLiSTICE H';'N;f§AGAMV{3H}§f€*V"D:§§S;

WRIT PETITION N(;".:)$_4_'_'____:«:L32.'S§'/':_.'}1:rv::V»".:l$;_}.\fGM---<;P¢§ 

BETWEEN?-

sm aHA1::::A gm '";<;:.LAIAH_    ' _
AGED AB0UT"§ﬁ.;_)(EARS,V"'-- ~  
occ:   
R/AT :a'.?¥AR_L}THI'i4AGi\R;'§V_ _
ARSIKERE£,_ Hxssm %o1s'm;ts:"r

 .   K!  %  PETITIONER

(av SRIf§V !..;ANGA:>1H'ARA§>§>A, A::>v.,)

1

A k-IN JA'§2XSvHA.ﬁ£v!{AR

5;/g3"'KAsH:%i::$:::xNJu:~:9A SETW
AGED Aaom se YEARS,

 ﬁCC:~.B{;%;SI§é£SS
V A R/M 33-m4uaHasrsARA BEEDHI
 ARSEKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT

  P«§.N.GIRIDHARA
~ ms;/0 MN'. ASANJUNDA SE"¥TY

AGEE} ABOUT 45 YEARS,
occ: BUSINESS
R,iA"r 510.43., 3*" MAIN
KORAMANGALA,

0'\"'"



2 W.P.13255§G9

VENKATAPURA TEACHERS COLONY
8ANGALORE - 560 036   
REP'. BY PA HOLDER I '
K.N. DURGAPWA SETTY

(RESPONDENT N03) , '
ARSIKERE, HASSAN DISTRI;"._T;.V..

3 K.N. DURGAPPA SETTY   

s/0 K.N. NAaAs:MHA:~3Ei{w.vA "  

AGED AEOUT 65 veAas,' _  

cscc: eusmess   1 

2"" cmss, PRA11BHA'C-ELLE *EgR<3Aa.. &%
ARSIKERE, H_AESSA;N aizs';m:.»;;~r%%.   .. 

M  . . u  % :3;  RESPCNDENTS

(av SR1 ;< T NA'C§~EN :".-iﬂék, §.Qv;%;A'%FO§5!ui[< 
sax s MAHEsH,A;}v., "fTj(}R_'F?.§'TO R3)

THIS WP.FILED"'--l}¥%ﬁ3ER"'----ARTICLES 226 8: 22? OF THE
CGNSTUTITION CIF "IN3IA «.PR}-'€YING TO QUASH THE ORSER
DT.8.12.0§3;"PASSEE}.BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
[3R~.DN] ._"4}¥.T3._LVARSIKE'RE-- ---------- «SN IA.NO.I AND IA.NO.II IN
(3$.NO.339/08:, PRQDUCED AS ANN---F.

m:$*'wRr%%%§E*IIn% om comm; ore FOR omens "ms

 %j[%%my, THE-««CQi._._i'RTv mas 'ma FOi_LOW§¥'4G:~

ORDER

...Pétit§oner is the plaintiff and respcndents are the %,j,,,,._ " §eféhdants before the tria£ Court. In this erder for /WM 4 WP.13255e'09 and the same came to be dismissed under the impu§ned"»erzi_ervv' dated 03.04.2009. Hence this writ petitien by the -

3. I-fearé argumehts on both:-'t'?1e~si;de the entire writ eapers.

4. Pieintiff purchased a '§it.:e*'A' sehelciuiie .{::;§"ei$erty unnder a registeree saie eeed j§;.2£"i2.,2OD3Hiiffem first de§endant. After purchaseHgf' '#;'..:iVs'eﬁed.~uie property; pieietiff hadbait'~:.i§i%ii,coi?i:é§i:i':e:§:'tE.e;e ef}esi'¢§ientiai house and he is residing witiiihiie gsieint, piaintiff contends that Gﬁ western sicieei' pVie_ir:A't~.._iiiﬂiiisehedtsie property, there is a _;:2"a~b.i_ic descfiibed----in piaint 'B' schedule property and i.fe'.>._ iijeiveiiebie for ingress and egress tothe piaint sciieeﬁie Beth the Ceurts below rzoticee the fact in t'ee"«;_seie deed in fewer of the piaietiff dated the westem side of piaint 'A' scheduie preperty is 'V.T::i;_"e?:.~§criV'i:Ied as site No.5 and net 3 public read. an the ether _i§'5aind', in the sale deed dated 22.12.2903, the nerthern side of ifthe piaint 'A' scheduie property is shown as a road of nine C7'"*"""' 5 WE 1325309 with the above ebservation, the writ patiticm is '% ' ' dismissed.

dh*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court