Karnataka High Court
Mayawwa W/O. Gopal Bagewadi vs Ravindra Calling Himself on 25 July, 2014
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
WRIT PETITION NO.100294/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1. Mayawwa,
W/o Gopal Bagewadi,
Age: 43 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Tukkanatti,
Tq. Gokak,
District: Belgaum.
2. Veena,
W/o Basavaraj Satappagol,
Age: 23 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Shindikurbeth,
Tq. Gokak,
District: Belgaum.
3. Roopa,
W/o Yallappa Maradi,
Age: 21 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Tukkanatti,
Tq. Gokak,
District: Belgaum.
4. Lokesh,
S/o Gopal Bagewadi,
2
Age: 19 years,
Occ: Student,
R/o Tukkanatti,
Tq. Gokak,
District: Belgaum.
5. Mahadevi,
D/o Gopal Bagewadi,
Age: 15 years,
Occ: Student,
R/o Tukkanatti,
Tq. Gokak,
District: Belgaum.
Since minor, rep. by their
Natural Guardian mother-
Petitioner No.1.
6. Umesh,
S/o Gopal Bagewadi,
Age: 13 years,
Occ: Student,
R/o Tukkanatti,
Tq. Gokak,
District: Belgaum.
Since minor, rep. by their
Natural Guardian mother-
Petitioner No.1. Petitioners
(By Sri Sachin S Magadum, Adv.)
AND
1. Ravindra,
S/o Gopal Bagewadi,
Age: 11 years,
R/o Tukkanatti.
3
Since minor, rep. by
M/G Geeta,
W/o Gopal Bagewadi-R 2.
2. Geeta,
W/o Gopal Bagewadi,
Age: 36 years,
R/o Tukkanatti,
Tq. Gokak,
District: Belgaum. Respondents
(By Sri Dinesh M Kulkarni, Adv., for R-2
(R-1 is minor and rep. by R-2)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
11.12.2013 passed in Misc.Appeal No.56/2013 on the file of V
Addl. District Judge at Belgaum, at Annexure-G, confirming the
order dated 16.9.2013 passed on I.A-III in O S No.320/2012 on
the file of I Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Gokak, vide Annexure-F.
This Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The Courts below have held that there is no prima facie case for granting temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. Under 4 such circumstances, there is no good ground to interfere with the impugned order.
2. In the result, Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
Judge Bjs