Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Smt Mahadevamma vs Sri V K Govindan Nair on 10 July, 2025 cites

A.M. Sunilkumar S/O A.M.Lokanath vs Manjunath S/O Mallikarjuna Hebbali on 30 January, 2020

3. Per contra, Sri.Chandrasekhara K., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-plaintiff submits that though in the instrument it is written as possession is handed over, the actual possession is with the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have played fraud on respondent No.1 as well as on the Court as they entered into agreement of sale on 04.07.2008 and in collusion with other parties, filed O.S.No.71/2011 and got the said suit compromised and thereafter, entered into a registered partition deed between the family members. By such act, the petitioners have played fraud and sold the property to the third party on the strength of the partition deed. It is further submitted that the conduct of the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:25332 W.P. No.2088/2020 HC-KAR petitioners is required to be looked into and on that ground also the writ petition is liable to be rejected. It is also submitted that insofar as the issue with regard to the deficit Court fee is concerned, the respondent No.1-plaintiff has sought the relief of specific performance as well as the possession. It is submitted that if the possession is with the respondent No.1- plaintiff, he would not have sought the relief of possession. Hence, the trial Court has rightly considered the said issue and rejected the petitioners' prayer for impounding the document and direction to pay the deficit Court fee & penalty. It is further submitted that if the plaint averments indicate that the respondent No.1-plaintiff is not in possession, the same is required to be looked into as held by this Court in the case of A.M.Sunil Kumar v. Manjunath4. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - K N Phaneendra - Full Document
1