Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

Sri J Rama vs M Vittal Bhat on 24 September, 2012

Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna

                             1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
      DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
                         PRESENT
     THE HON'BLE MR.VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          AND
       THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
             WRIT APPEAL NO.1067/2012(LR)
BETWEEN

SRI J RAMA S/O UMANNA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/A MORGEN GATE
JEPPU, MANGALORE-575 001
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

1A) SMT INDIRA
    W/O LATE J RAMA
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
    R/A MORGEN GATE, JEPPU
    MANGALORE-575 001

1B) SMT SAHANA A
    W/O ASHOK B
    AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
    R/A MORGEN GATE, JEPPU
    MANGALORE-575 001

1C) SRI SANDEEP
     S/O LATE J RAMA
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
     R/A MORGEN GATE, JEPPU
     MANGALORE-575 001
(1-A TO 1- C ARE IMPLEADED
 V/O DATED 24.07.2012)
                                      ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI K GIRIDHAR, ADV.,)

AND

1.     M VITTAL BHAT
       S/O ANANTH BHAT
                          2

     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     EMPLOYEE IN CORPORATION BANK
     MAHA MAYA TEMPLE ROAD
     MANGALORE

2.   SMT MEENA R KAMATH
     W/O A RAMADAS KAMATH
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
     EMPLOYEE IN CORPORATION BANK
     JAYENDRA NAYAK COMPOUND
     LOWER CAR STREET, MANGALORE

3.   SRI RAM MOHAN SHENOY
     S/O SRINIVAS SHENOY
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
     EMPLOYEE IN CORPORATION BANK
     PETLEMPETE, MANGALORE

4.   SRI TARANATAH SHENOY K
     S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     EMPLOYEE IN CORPORATION BANK
     KODIAL BAIL, MANGALORE

5.   SRI B NARASIMHA PAI
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
     EMPLOYEE IN CORPORATION BANK
     PATEL COMPOUND
     OLD KENT ROAD, MANGALORE

6.   SRI P SARAVOTHAMA KINI
     S/O P K KINI
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     EMPLOYEE IN CORPORATION BANK
     ANANTHAPADMANABHA NAYAK COMPOUND
     KINNIMOOLKI, UDUPI

7.   SRI DINAKAR PAI S/O ANNAPPA PAI
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
     EMPLOYEE IN CORPORATION BANK
     MANNEGUDDA, MANGALORE

8.   SRI K JAGANNATH PAI
     S/O BABURAYA PAI
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
                           3

      EMPLOYEE IN CORPORATION BANK
      CAR STREET, MANGALORE

9.    SRI BALAKRISHANA BALIGA
      S/O RAMACHANDRA BALIGA
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      EMPLOYEE IN CORPORATION BANK
      V R ROAD, V T COLONY, MANGALORE

10.   SRI P VASUDEVA BHAT
      S/O P DAMODAR BHAT
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
      EMPLOYEE IN CORPORATION BANK
      V R ROAD, V T COLONY, MANGALORE

11.   SRI A RAMADAS KAMATH
      S/O NARAYANA KAMATH
      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
      LOWER CAR STREET, MANGALORE

R-1 TO 11 ARE REP BY THEIR POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI P K ALVA
S/O LATE P C ALVA, R/AT PADUVU MEGINA
MANE, KULSHEKAR POST
MANGALORE-575 005, D.K.

12.   ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
      MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION
      MANGALORE

13.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ITS SECRETARY
      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
      M S BUIDLING, BANGALORE-1

14.   THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
      M S BUILDING, BANGALORE
      BY ITS SECRETARY
                                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K, ADV., FOR C/R-1 TO 11;
SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-12 TO 14)

    THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
                               4

THE    ORDER      PASSED    IN   WRIT             PETITION
NO.22221/2004(LR) DATED 25/11/2011.

    THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, CJ (Oral) In this case, occupancy rights have been granted in favour of the Appellant on 20.10.1981. It appears that the land in question was mortgaged by the Appellant to an extent of 1 Acre 46 Cents and unable to redeem it, the land was eventually sold. Respondent Nos.1 to 11 are the purchasers of the land. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has taken cognizance of the fact that after expiry of approximately twelve years, the Appellant/Petitioner has sought to challenge the legality of those transactions. Relying on Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs Fatmabai Ibrahim, (1997)6 SCC 71, it has been noted that if no time limit is prescribed for taking of any particular action, that action must be taken within a reasonable period. We find no error in this approach, keeping in perspective that a period of twelve years had elapsed.

No grounds for interference made out. Dismissed. 5 In view of the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, I.A.No.1/2012 would not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE bkv