High Court Karnataka High Court

Basavantappa S/O Siddappa vs Hanamawwa W/O Dhareppa Taggihal on 19 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Basavantappa S/O Siddappa vs Hanamawwa W/O Dhareppa Taggihal on 19 March, 2008
Author: H.G.Ramesh
' ' % um. 11941157921300?
ul mnmou mum on 
DATED mm mm 19" onion   
nnmnfn '   %% ' %

 

1 not 1151:: l'lP'l'|.I nrn l'I.lI'\ AI-r\r\.n,nnA
J. DHDHVHIV 1H.l'-'I"£\g U] U DllJl_Jfln

A/F SI-IIVAPA JALIKA'I'I'I_ _ V'
AGE: 66 mass, occ: AGE'$fiLTfiR<E
§!P..'P,""*£'E:'?'.'?§'.'E..""?""*""'   '
'lI\LaUlS: r.-snuu1\'1'n -- -- » _ -

DISTRICT--BELGA.U:M-O1     _  
(BY sax SRIN§LNE3§.-- PA<{'}Hl:!!£I3URl§;';A}DVJ..:VV§AI % %
A139: '"   'V *   

1.

HANAMAWWA W’;:_Q.DIiAREPPA-‘–<'FAGGIHAL % -_
AGE: so YEARS. occgnn, M % .

R/o1.1NAmaovAR.Ko?m_ 1% ' %

TALU-is; sAunAfm%%'~ _ _%

DISTRICT-BELGAUM–01

2. BEJDDlVAhl’l’A.I?PA’ S/O MALI.APP’A.KURI
V. ‘_ _MTiE:% 50 YEARS’,’«Q.GC»: AGRI’CUL_’l’URE
. R/0′!NANi£30VANKOPPA _
» J_np.L1JK;.s.A;U’i3A1’PI ‘ _
” V DISTRIC’P–BELGAU-M-01 ‘ _ REQPONDENPS

‘L slat j~i:;1»:.Ai§HARI<3oNn. ADV, R03 R2; _ : ~ 1- ~
smizvzrsa HELD aumcrmrr :1-N R-ESPEGT om21L_) %ti ,

n T Tais WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER %ARfi(3LE7s%*T–::26%&
.A227%-gr Tl-TIE CONSFITUTIOIE oF_11u_m_A- }QL;IA._§.1H'

% T -THE_(EJRD_ER m*.ao.s.2oo7 PASSED-BY__"I'HE';(2I§fI!,-yJ1JD(3E'j(SD),
gmungm mt :19: 10/2996 rgapucsp "AND

V' V. 1 nave heard me i""*ned counsel p,……–=–'i.

'|.l.LP, N0. 1579212007

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN "B" GROUP, THIS DAY. THE (T.0U'Fi'T'

FOLLOWING:

O R D E It

This writ petition by the plaintifi’ in
O.S.No.82/2005 before the court of °
{Jr.Dn.), ..’%av..-id:-;-…i is d.i.rer;¢.ed

dated 30.08.2007 0′

Appellate Court — t11e’: Courtof Jndge”iSr.Dn.).,
Saundatti dismissing No.10/2006
f|.1ed. by the Lower

Appeiiatejv 14%”. rnedfise i.rit.er1r.v_~.1_1to:y

dateriv passed by the trio}
court the dismissing the application-
I.A§No._ 1 1115:! by %tl1eipé£itioner/plaintiif under Order 39

Aggie:-§”‘i:i«1 2 CPC for grant of an order of

._ ‘-“on “is past the defe-nd.a.-..s L1

réspeet suit property.

3

G.

d

0 the parties and perused the impugned orciers at

Annexures-A as B. Learned counsel for the petitioner,

\ /

any
/

or PIIIIJAB uun 1975 no 1674) and also a

this court In u-1-Hun @ §’.{..V.’IC’.’i5j-§’.3. “”I’.-‘,l’_”_:”V:9. ” V

am 1999 mm 301).

3. As could be seen at
.AI1nexures-A & B, that

the ,%…1.1…ner1s.;._z1_-t £9: :.,,t-a_1i1″”c;;*<iV.4=e.-':9 bf temporary

injunction Tflé It is i'*-'u'e'v'-e."at
to rcf¢r__vt9r3….Vifi.'-1é;_: of Lower
Appeflate .CcAi1 1'i~tVat;i'paI°a;'_j:i-3__ er me impugned judgment:
.13. it is admittedfiaat that,
dealh, an appeal before-the
.":*A3st.'4§.'9m1hiss*i:3ner bearing Ab

ee_m;Re;a.1é;41/91-92 and another appeal

KL;é.m;s5/as-as in which it is observed, the
A.c.em his order stated that, the pejfprayeci

far'possession of the suit' iiaffifa nvr¢,_"'"
" so an the bcisfi of tfrfi ab;-are-.-33.6:-.3 a-"……-"-

& -by t-"-e AG

W.P. NO. 15792/2007

fhfl an-if runway-ugcnluu am. 41.- ..1_J… -1! ,1 u

…….._ I… ' L. '_–

nendmmvu nf ft-an alum. .._..:A name – "8 ._ 'T ;.

ought not have mnugd ,fl.:g- mq..a.;,,y ";ar '4

impugned So; ':u:i_thf
observations the trial has
to the
inrespect ofthe record,
°J' '"9 by the
fifif sf-afih not at an
.An-..L-ass'. +-.;.,y _.'2."-'.."=.':e.'V.£;£."".' the I.-'..;'. '

%%%%

4. in the light of the

Drinr;.’.pl§s ‘by’ I-Ion’ble Supmme com-t in

226-%%& of the Constitution of India pertaining to

V “v’intv¢f’lc§cufo1y ondcrs passed by courts subordinate to
Court.

NC). 1379212007 _

U!
E
E
8
E
B
D’
11:

§’
2
3
E3.

53

E
.5
E?’
‘:3
.3»
,..I
5-?

face of’ the record to warrant

extraordinary jurisdiction of this V’

226 as 227 of the Constitutiqn of

Petition dismissed. lower
court records __ T

– f j’urisd’ci:ion or error appaz-en’: