1
. :3
.0' SI" .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 201D.j}{_O~-V.Vv
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.vEAn_;GQPA.'LA'"Gb;§4Y'DA'_'_*V,
WRIT PETITION NO.17386 0F'=20I'_O Y('GM:=c'PG)
BETWEEN:
SMT YESHDDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS;
W/O SRI KEMPAIAH ._ j; ;
D/O LATE VENKATESH BABE' . .
RESIDENT AT 7TH HDSKQTE VILLAGE,' 1, ~
AUDAGONE SOM.WA.RPET TALLIK _ -
KODAGU *
SMT PUSHPA _ _
AGED 4_1_,_YEA~RS} V .,
D/o LATE sRIp;:IvAS-A."
SRI NIRAN'3AN _ , .
AGED 39 YEARS, A _
S/O LATE S*RINI.vASA. 2
SMTESHOEA
AGED 3»--7'TYE"ARS,
» D/Q LATE«.SRIf\§.IVASA.
AGED 33,YEA;1S,
D/o'=LAT.'E SRINIVASA.
SMT GEETHA
AGED 30 YEARS,
«D/o..LATE SRINIVASA.
__SRIPuRuSHoTHAM
AGED 27 YEARS,
10
11
12
13
14
15'
S/O LATE SRINIVASA.
SMT SEETHAM MA
AGED 65 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRINIVASA,
SMT BHUVANESHWARI
AGED 30 YEARS, ~
DAUGHTER OF LATE ADISHESHA. '
RESIDING AT BRADI,
NELLIAHUDIKERI.
SMT VANI
AGED 29 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF LATE ADIS*E:!&ESHA,".' * Q';
SMT REKHA ._
AGED 28 YEARS, , ..
DAUGHTER OELATE. V' " V
MS. DI\/YA , 1
AGED 24 YEARS_,_: _ '_
DAUGHTER 1o'E.,_LA'T--E_,A_DI.S'+IEsHA«...._W
SRI RAVI I
AGED 23.x/EARS, _ _
SON OF LATE~ADI'SHESH.A.'*~.
SRIRADHU
AGED. 25, YEARS, " ..... .. -
,.-9QN 0r="'LATE~.ADISHESHA.
-.. S"'r~<:_TV VISHA LAx~I, V'
A-GED' 6G "rE:AR':3,
WIEE DEEATE ADISHESHA.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BRADI,
NEEL_.LIAH'uDII<ERI VILLAGE,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
'I<O'DAGu DISTRICT.
~-('RETITIONERS 2 TO 15 ARE REPRESENTED
BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SMT YESHODA THE PETITIONER NO.1)
RETITIQNERS
(BY SR1 NJAGADISH BALIGA, ADV.)
AND;
1 SR1 H S JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O SALLAIAH
RESIDING AT HARIJAN COLONY,
NELLIHUDIKEREI,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
2 SMT H B LALITHA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,'
W/OH.S NANAIAH ~ ._ ;
D/O LATE VENKATESH BABLI-3 V '
3 SRI H S NANAIAH];
AGED ABOOTS1 vEARS,,
SON OF K. SAIIINAFI-IA.'_.__ »
RESPO:y\IDENTSV.;:_..AND3 --AR'EV _ _
RESIDINAG AT :\IALLfIHuD.II<ELR'I--- VILLAGE,
VIRAJRET«TA--LLII<',_
KODAGU DI,S_TRICT._ I
_ V. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI lv4:CARS:bHA RALONI5H’E’,””/-‘IVDV. FOR R1;
‘R2 & R3? SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
T”TH’I-TSITAVI’:1§’£T: RRETITION IS FILED ARTILCE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF:’j_INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
“F.’D.R. NO-L2/2_G’O2.V.–ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)
HMADLIKERI; ALLOW THIS PETITION AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE
DATED.,_.1’9.9.2oo9 AT ANNEXURE–A IN F.D.P. No.2/2002 ON
.1 RTH’E;F.ILE'”Ojr’ THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AT MADIKERI AND THERE
-.DISMISS THE F.D.P. NO.2/2002.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
‘ I COIIRT MADE THE FOLLOWING:–
ORD§R
1″ respondent — Sri H.S. Javaraiah, S/o S.-_S-a’i’!a’i’ah,
instituted o.s.1o3/89 on the file of Civii Judge, Matiiitehjeegeithet
Venkatesh Babu, S/o Javaraiah, for thereiiefnofpa’rtitVio,nj_ah.d’«it
separate possession. After trial, the “‘ssuit1t_’was
judgment and decree dated Aggsrievetd-,2 th’e’=e5’aintiff”‘ti
filed R./–\.19/95, which after;_.hearinig—ii\ia–saliowed’by afiudgment
and decree dated ‘~\[eni<atesh Babu,
being aggrieved by4the'de:c'reeiiafg the appellate
Court, filed RSA€.6','2§"t'3:'/_9;éf..g'_2p'u':f§Vnig of the appeal, the
appellant – it 'th.e.dppea| was prosecuted by
smt. H.B. LeiithaVitavndfhjer,'v'hu:s'ba.'nd H.S. Nanaiah as the legal
representatives",.,\ThexV'seco.n"d~fiapépeai was dismissed on 21.8.01.
Thereafter, p|ainti*ff.i_n_$t5tuted FDP 2/02. The petitioners who
are thedau:g'hte.r""a.nd grand children of deceased Venkatesh
Babuu,*g'ot*thei'n'seities impleaded in FDP 2/02 as respondents 3
to -17.
the petitioners have instituted O.S.27/O5 against
for the reiief of deciaration that the judgment and
1
decree passed in 05.103/89 by virtue of ailowing of R.A.19/95
in not binding on them and for partition and separate po.sse;ssion
of the suit schedule properties. Defendant 1 in
stated to have filed written statementyand the ‘s”a’idf_isu’it is st_iu|I* a
pending adjudication.
3. The petitioners fiied objectiions in’—F_p–i>.s2/o’2;’e’n’dJ inter’
alia contended that, the,i3egtition””is.nj’not”–.maintairia’b:Ie. The
objections of the petitioners and a Court
Commissioner was§..appoi.ntedfto’.§i::;vidd:.i’tjheV’prjoyperties as per the
decree passed in R.A.19/95 dated
29.6.98 on :h”e’ri’ie:er Madikeri. Said order
has been questiioned’in”th’iswr:ii’t’i«petition.
4. ,.4.i’:”v/5\1f”‘vZE’I’ avrguinflg the matter for some time, Sri N.
Jagadish. _i3alVigAap,«iearned advocate appearing for the petitioners
subrnitted,’thatfjg-the”petitioners may be permitted to withdraw
thegwrit p”etit’ioVn”vvith liberty being reserved to the petitioners to
4:jguestioriiieithesimpugned order by filing an appeal in the Dist.
it/iadikeri, since the impugned order is nothing but a
‘ judggment in the FDP and can be questioned by filing an appeai.
‘QM
WM
/.;
In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty being reserved to the petit4i.oVn’ers.._ to
question the impugned order in an appeal before
Court.
The interim order granted in this_wri’tep’etition’:sh’a’iVl:”istar.i_d
extended up to 4.10.2010. The V-:lVe’.*-taified”‘c.opyVof*the.\=imypirgnedui0′
order be returned to the learned__Vj4_l:C’e.ura-sel petitioners
without any delay. A . it it
This petition was was issued on
3.8.2010. The i.’e’;”, from 3.6.2010 till
date, shall application being filed
seeking the appeal to be filed by the
petitioners bei’éo”re_’_’ the
In ‘said ____ of the matter, rule issued stands
writ petition stands disposed of as
‘ 0N0 c0’sts’.–r_: I Sd/,3
Judge
. ‘visastl