High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Thamme Gowda vs Smt Kamala on 9 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Thamme Gowda vs Smt Kamala on 9 April, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
' -;  _  ;.

 . »_ _ ' ~ ._frHALAGO::§R VILLAGE
 . V SUNKASRLE POST
..;jMUm.§ERE
-  ',;}?;;s M*IA' PARVATHI

 " ";e'~.'c31':1:> ABOUT 35 YRS
v R/O ARAMNE, THALAGOOR VILLAGE

IN THE HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT    _
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF APRIL.  % T V 
EEFORE:¥     .M    
THE HOWBLE MR. .,IU$I'1c:§_«'";- .If~'j .ANANI§'}%"q'».  2 V ..
WRIT PE;1_jyrIoN NO.59$ I
BETWEEN: %  _    

1. SR} THAMME GOWDA  N
8/0 VENKAPPA GOVJDA, 

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 

R/0 ARAMANE    ., 3 
THALAGOOR'VIL§..;AC}' 'l._ »  
SUNKASALE mstr, .  . 
MUDiGERE'E?EPj.BY G.PA H.OLDER'"~.... 
A T GANESH, AGED ABOLITQ5 YRS,
S/O sR1'=i1*HAMr~A2'c§0w:>A';.__ --. ' '
R/O ARAMANE, 1'HA1AG00.R"*.n£mGE
SUNKASALE POST,"MU'I}1GE'RE .. PETITIONER

(By 5;; sA.NATHK:.I§+iAR $HE'l"I'Y K, ADVOCATE)

W/G--MAbiJA1AH, "
AGED ABOU'F--g_4I YRS
E'/O ;A.RA2\aNE;'

W ,3 OGANGADHARA

SUNKASALE POST
MU BIGERE .. RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. VIGHNESHWAR S SI~LASI’Ri, ADVOCATE}

2

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 22′?’ OF THE
CONSTYFUTION OF INEHA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.
7.12.2066 PASSED IN M¥SCE§.LANEO{1S APPEAL N0. 26/2006
ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AT CHIKMAGALUR VIBE
ANX»A; ;

This petition, coming <én.. for Vfxteilfimirsgijréj
in B gmup, this day, tzht: Cc311I"t,VV "made the folltawifzg:

..—.-.-.u—-

In the impug71ed- have
been the learned
trial gieeide the case on
mefitsfiwhm 7.12.2006. It: appears,

there is parties as to the nature of

st1it,,._%fi»ehedt1IeV” Acteording to plaintiff, suit

is a cillfiqahle land and according to

time’ c.-zaee rife-defeixdants suit saehedllle property is a site

‘V graeéfegi “‘V1md er Ashraya scheme. The defendants have

..fpi1’r]*:._1up etmstmlefion. The learned I appellate judge has

‘ both parties to maintain status-quo.

2. The learned I appeilate judge has not defined
the nature of stams~qno. The learneri T appellate judge

has recorded a findim; that deeuments filed bur nlaintiff

would make out a prime. faeie ease in favenr of plaintiff.

§\.’,’7 , ‘L-«’L&/I{\.-“– (Ly 2

defining the nature of status-ql 10. ‘l”l1eI’c:fo?e’,–»A4
imp1 xgned order manraot be eustairaed.

5. hi the result, l pass the 1′:’0llewingf_4

The writ petifitm is aeeeptexlf«fE’leel’§m{$i’zgfirued«. *

is set aside. The matter is eppellate
ceurt for re~mneidm*el.i*.)n law.
However, it is mafie cleafi if ‘lof which the
appeal had. the appeal may

respondents would submit

that applie;_§tienV”fi.le§l’ Order 41 Rule 27 CPU is

not “h§lfvVthe: learned l appellate court. While

.f’e+<:(:)r:sV1:rlAer§.§A.1'g.the matter, the learned I appellate judge

the application filed under Order 41

— V Rule”

‘ AA u.t.c.:.M~re»(
‘ .. ‘ With these obeervafinns, petition is ‘ ‘ ‘
l. ‘ ,V . – W \u.v’ ‘

Sd/~
Judge

em/-«