Smt Gowramma vs Smt Hiriyamma on 8 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA !\'T»vE§)¢g£\:1C'?~T¥\LQ§1:E"ER 

DATED THIS THE 08" DAY, OEf"J..»5;NEU/_5«REY"ZGV1'IQ' 

BEEDRE  E'

THE HON'BLE Ix»aR.IuSTIj;:E P.._g€_\\/I..'f\'1»'x:i_,1I'(],..1;:\T§-i

WRIT PETITIONE"NC);~1'¢$IZ%SV?7  (GM--CPC)

BETWEEN

 L  
W/O.,LATE GIRI«M'A]LL__APPA:;

VvTAGF1»D:':ABO:§-J'? ')?"Q:'YEAEP§S'," I
 I

R/0% s<A BVBU':_RV_V*£.i§L.£§'GE,
RAIMAGON DEANAJ"-jf.ALLI PO ST,

1'V   : V " 'Vl   AND DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

  MANJLINA"'fHA PUTTANASHETTY, ADV)

   I   

Ix; 

S.M4I9'?1.VIiIIRIYAMMA
W/O" LATE GIRIMALLAPPA

" A;-GED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD

SMT BASAMMA
D/O LATE GIRIMALLAPPA

'W/T"



r--4

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD 

3 MALLIKARJUNA V 
D/O LATE GIRIMALL.A'F?PA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEA'RS",*.
0cc:AGRICIuLTuRIST  

4 SMT RATHNAM"MA-- =  L  
D/O LATE GIRI[YlAL_i__A|?_P}A  A
AGED AB'O.UT;31  A 
OCC:      

5 PARAM"ES_;H 3  
"D LATE 'C:fVIR'IF-QVALLAPPA
7__AG_ED  2-TRIEARS,

OCC:AGRI'CL!_LTij'R«EST

S   ', 3YOflTH..i A - 
 Dxo LAT=E.c;:TRIMALLAPPA

  ABOUT 23 YEARS

O  D/O:'j_L,5\TE GIRIMALLAPPA
 ABOUT 18 YEARS

T.  'ALL ARE R/AT KABBUR VILLAGE,
 RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT"S

“°(SY SR1 A HANUMANTHAPPA, ADV FOR R1–7)

°@iJ”””

THIS WRIT PETITION Is;E’I’LE.:mUNO«E:R”iARTI?CLEs E is

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ‘OF .Xi.N’iiZiI_1:/EX

PRAYING TO OuAsH THEORDERA DT 18T.Itio;2oo8IVIDEO
ANNEXURE–E PASED av THECOLIRT QFI AiD’D[,I,~’jCIV1i;g

JUDGE (sR.O\/N) AT OA_vANAGERETR2i:IN’ii: O.s.NO.
159/O6. -2*~2i. ‘=-t *

THIS PETITION FOIR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN ‘B’ GROLIR-THIS, OAY,”~TH.E COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING: I ‘

{the learned Counsel, the
matte? iis:tIaiV<'e'i2. disposal.

aggrieved by the order dated

'18.1(5IZO.Q'8..Vpassed on I./1\.No.II under Order 3 Ruie 2

the pfaintiff–petitioner, seeking for an

or'Ioer""Vtéo.'oVermit the GPA holder of the plaintiff to give

iewdeoice, the I Add}. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),

'Davanagere, has rejected the said appfication.

€Lf'”‘

3. Sri Manjunatha

Counsel appearing for the _petit’ion’e.r COl’ltfen:dS”

order is bad in iaw and is”i’i»!..i:able to ~bé”isvet aiasiicie. He
contends that the p:i_a”‘intif.r’h’is:.’:;ig:e’dfia«lmost years and
for the reasons state.ci.,:i’i_n..:»af’Fi’d.a\i».iti the GPA Hoider

could be e>€:.arT}1ii’ii”1ed.VVon he r

f4?’O.;j’:i:,heVafiji’riq”the learned Counsel, Pam of the
considered’ petition is liabie to be set

aiiowed for Vt’he.i’oll’owi”hg reasons:

Trial Court while rejecting the application
“ca’rnevtoV’cj’:th1’e conciusion that it was not ciear as to

whiethervthe GPA Hoider is conversant with all the

A facts and he has already done his part of the job on

gghalf of the piaintiff in respect of the famiiy properties.

€Ar””