DATED nus THE 14'"! DAY or % nEronE-_ 1-an Hownm HR. Jusucm gm, M 1.
..}. naa.u.a….. 2.1.. :a,j;’~;.4» _.__.r
fi
SREEKANTA ‘A ‘
s,/o LA’PE;JAVARAV_lAH-., .V
AGED ABOUfI’ 48’YEARS, _
Knlsui-JA ~ ‘
s,:’c:i- ;_.a.:;'”E,J’_’fvARA1;ue1″‘-,»_, V
5gEn,qBa;jT 49 ‘(Em-es,__
sM15TSu’M11f1€A. w.)’e mTE MUDDUMADUI
.p.A;I_IGHTER;:u-Lm!__0F LATE JAVARAIAH
hc§E’D%ABQU’:j’4o’*:$AR~s,
M _ sM’1″ ~r-.»1AHA,t:-EVMEJIA, D/0 LATE JAVARAIAH
w,Ir;: i_.A:z’E MAHJLDEVU
AGED ABC)U–‘–‘.’-‘——-1&4 YEARS,
vi
‘=._SMT=SfiH!VAMMA D/O {ATE JAVARAIAH
‘ ‘Inn-mew
I’ll II II
AGEDABOUT 34 YEARS,
‘*7S.M*1*’V’sHANTHAMMA. mo LATE JAVARAIAH
;o sow.-.=n.A.:.Iua @ coxnunangzuga
“AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
” ‘ Li. ARE R/AT HOUSE BEARING No.34.
OFF; ‘:*Aru’rv:a ‘I”:.1}v€PLE
; KYATHAMARANAHALLI, MYSORE.
PETITIONERS
(BY M/S. M S RAJENDRA PRASAD ASSOCIATES. ADVS.)
£5
S-MT DEVAMMA. W/O LATE SAKAIAH
AGED ABOUT C.-6 YEAR
R/AT KYATHAMARANAHALLI
PEAZ-‘%. BAD MOHALLA, 1
MYSORE.
% _ iaE:;~:;=oNpE§N’1*%
(BY SRL MAHANTESH s HosMA;i’ia:, mqv.) ” ‘
OF’ THE c_:pNs’r1’1’u’rIoN OE-‘ IND1A.~”PRM_’IN(3 ‘P0 QUASH THE
UNDER l.JI’\’l’I!JU ‘J-3. 1.’JU§JO !”‘I’9_S3’3!.’.i1)_|’-,1?! iVI.V_A.’VNU. H) U!” ZUUD UN THE
FILE or THE THIRD ADD1’If.If.’).NAL.DISTRlC’1f’ JUDGE. MYSORE, AND
i.’A.ixiu.
IN 0.S.N0-:.’ 671..,0′?I:3o04,;c)N~.THE”~:§*i1.b: OF’ THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE”: (SENi0.R ;~:;iv1s1<:m;._.}_ivivsofiig.
on for Prelilnilmly hearing
in B"GI'cj.u1p, ..a;1ay4,*t.l__1"c made the following:
l'|'l'lI'l'I'l'|'I:I
2
S. No. 671/ 2004, pending on the file
‘ J31’ (Sr. Divn.), Mysore are the petitioners.
.’T1iéy 1é1.sai?.i'<_:V..T:qucsLiu11cd, in Lhis writ petition, the order
MA. 10/2905 by 1.111: I11
%
073
2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing an boll:
sides and perused the record of the writ petition.
\_,.
/,7
3. Sri M.S. Rqicndra Prasad, learned e.=a%;i¢%%::gu;1sc1
for the pcl3’l.ioncrs conl.c::ude»d that »i;:*..__
illegal, pelvenscg +_.n_I_.i capziefiuus.’ j
c<m£.""d"d that ihe iower;
iuipugucd order, wil.l1oul’.’V”L’L»$i_i*¢¢~;)_g:I’ of the
material facts and l1a§v;’AAc2VA:xt.’t:t:ded in its
ju1’iadictJ’on i11valluwi;V;gv:'(_}A.;Vc ”
4. 1°61: S. Husumlh, learned
1*¢g$1Jm1de11t contended that the
(3:»::_ij3:rA1; “‘éonsidcring the Inatxarial facls,
ci1~;.:’mx;slai1cr._$ and itacurcl of the case as well I.-1… the natum
.oI””~*._li._’p’n_:-I_._’..”«.i__.r_.; r:.-..-poise-. 91′ me: ju:’iw’c””i: in it, has
mic:-, lftmt too with conditions. Learned
Cir-Lu1e$el -cblmtlndcd that theme is no exercise of excess
A AAjF.!1’iS(Iit::Li0l1 by the lower appellate Court and no case is
flinade out for i11Lt:rfe1em:c in un: writ },_.I.;_ir.21- by llai.-5
‘R ,,
5. Considering the rival coutezntjons, and ”
the point for consideration is:
Whether the low;-I”A” “has” 0
committed any illega1ity,=.__ per-are1’sityA.at1d’
ca}.-129.19-.a.ss1y 11; }.nae_:s_=1;;g t.1;e’1;I.1LIp_1″1Icz,1;eti_-V_o:’«;t:::’? ‘
6. Considering the fact tltatvthe writ petition arises out
of an int.m’le-.:ut.o1’y 0′ it tanteuseem-3,: to
refer to the faete oi’fl’1e’caee’ Veinue the ilupugneci
onler
of a’*po__1_ftio11 allotted to de1’iendau%. 4 under a
‘ .:.VLo1111o;.1ro11;1ieé: decree passed in O. S. No.2t’)41/91 by the
” Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Myeole. The
~ :.:.,:,.-‘I (‘1 …. -,a ..fl…..
0 R11 uuuu. mus:
fiajgrpvlicatioli was contested by the 4″‘ del’endanl.. The
}……..’….. II
parties, by its order dated 25.02.2005 has allowed the
application and the defendant no.4 was appoiutsed as
Receiver to properly account the income derived from the
‘m .1′ v al,1ot.ted to her, in the compromise decree passed
I’
LII
in as. No.214/1991. Condition was also i1:11._”‘3″‘-
eII’ect that, he should furnish accounts Ollciifiillv$lX:lil1ll1’1.liei’
till the dispusal cf the suit. It was also
90% :11′ the earning fiuul the te l
Vie ..f’
‘E: 1
‘ii-g ftviv {gig-.’Vk;i:iIl>:I’I’.lJIltfilli-‘fie 5 vi’-VIl'”‘l”l”Vl’l”|’lH-i’l’
subject to pmper and also
directed for ftuilislzillgl fol. pcI.[o1mi11g the
actol’1’ecx:i§s~ei-iljlz party to the suit.
Petitiezleii-e said order. it was
defetlidaut’ tl’e “-“n””‘<me impeeezl in
the §1u¢;.,'1'i1gd 10/ 2005 in the lower Appellate
causiaelixjg die fact that defendant 4 in the suit is
" _edl11i5t"t.edl3'lA_ ' Hjieesessiozl of the property and the
V =g:'«..-}.2e'."Q.;-..'V ji.l~x.+….~1;g ell V LI. a_=1:;_ll ezgtent, eumpaled to the suit
1 1:11'
et:l1e(_luEe4i'.V'p1'ope1'ty, in which "1iiIiil.I.I1i:i lmu**="'
.. el1azve–~lla1;d as the plaintilI's am entitled to mesne Inufil,
l they succeeded in the suit, wherein an enquiry can also be
F held to ascertain the vent collected by defendant 4 from
lam – all in view of the
— —–r.r –
decision of the Apex Court in me vi’ 1’|.”””‘i.ir”‘i Baa’ eu-
\.\
A’
an
— ..q.
the 1:-ondil;ione imposed against defelldetit out
justified and hence was set aside—- and d_efeiIsde11|§]4w£te.
t._.re¢_:Led ,o furnish details of J
J
H
1e rope -igy’ an} the 1iaee:se»..o’*mlit. da_’i-.r’~;:a1 E.’_.!.i:–.: «.e;;-e.«.,..; 1.!’ t.;_e
£1
shop premises. PLr1*:s.L_1e11t;’I1>*At,_heVV dei’e11<iai1i. 4
has also filed memo of '1__l1l:3 trial Court on
3O.03.200'Z~vfi2;j)iel1i11g§the new um tenants and the
mozztlaly '
8. ‘ANoticingtlie.t’at:t”‘tluat the plaint.i1Te in the suit. did not
sL1;3¢,’eed the findings in the order dated
V. ” ‘ voii1e:’s on IA No.3 is also against them and
V’ -flae hi .11a_.e (“tom-1. has only deleted the conditiolns,
w.i1io,’s1’i:o?ti1e facts ai
ii ‘*f’i”cijiii:-eta:-we of um :.:e.ee, in 1:33.!
.t ;viev.s.v=.- is juetified, the lower Appellate Court. has
V’ ‘ediowed the appeal. Since the petitjozxem did not. question
1 the order passed on IA No.3 by the trial Court and as the
cenditione ..npr..n:~:e-d _om;,, to be unacceptable, the
vested in it, has passed the impugned order,
appeal in part, i.e, only setting aside
fit
fuiiiisii details, which .1.”a.a1’1iir.sli;:_s,1. ‘*.a;§. the
memo of calculation dated d”‘um”
5’.
fumiehed in the ‘iet_a;ti1*1.’e1:t ei'”’11’et. and the
income derived [ruin the inquiied into
ee}.-e1’e.t.ely :wiiy”ei:’d1iiesI_1..é pmfite, in my view,
the iuwer l:ia:sl’:’-“fit. {:e::m:…ted .r-my ..1_.geliLy,
pe1’ve’.rsity_ x0i’._-vVe;;11;:1ie*ieu_ts act in passing the iinpugned
order. “T_lie1re’ie_ 11-45′ -ei-i~:,;i”«:ii’ illegality apparent. on the face
of ifeeerd» 9’l””iin1iug;l1etl order, to set aside the same in
A the -.I.’:°’i.t jtfiiylicliflll
iii view of the petitioners not ehuileligilig the ouier
it IA NO.3 by the trial Court dated 25.20.2005, nu-
as such is caused by the impugned older passed
” ‘W the ..p1.re…r-.a.i._. C_Ll1’L. No gmuiid is made out In
interfere with the older impugned i*ei”e”i, ‘-‘l:ieli in my
.11;p:_,s_:-:11 t__l defendant 4 wiu1;’J:i”i*ide1*’..’tl;s:LtLV’:v!;eV:elnoi.:ldf
957
View is just, couzsidering the uuncurrcni. i’u1¢.iji:n’e§,f”–« file
trial Court as well the lower Appellate V
In the result, writ pclitiui; i:e d’cv0id.,%”0IV
I-.ur
‘u
J”IJI&I Cl
~.._, \.uau.| mu… -..«m-:.:.-.-: !.h.*:V..~:-.:1=.–!. 9.! LL:
and is one for pa1’ljt:i9_1:, £115 ‘1mw’i sio11s made
under the Rules, 200.5,
the trial is Ithe disposal of me
:;n_1iL .t}1;-‘.5 one year from mu dale
‘ Sd/-Q