IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE son»: DAY 09* JULY, A'
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.J%usT1<3;S§§A v':%%T
WRIT PETI'I'ION Ng.9€x{)Q 01%' {G§£'1-(Q5PC! %
BETWEEN :
Smt.K.ama}amma, .. .
D/0 Late Mung:-:rappa," ' "
Aged 53 years, V A "
R/at Kalekerc V'1ii.a_ge,;_'
k
}3angalore~;5"6!}«._O431;V_ A ». . PE'I'I'I'IONER
(is? sI2:;G.?;2:E:x1A?i§A.kAsH 85 V.R.F'RASA.NNA,
% _ :_jV~._A.T)aVQ.E'3ATES.}
%%%%%
A " Si Kempaiah,
.A'g®d»--3-;~i.nkaanjznxau1,
. " -.5/o Late Era Ksmpaiah,
Aged 31 years,
i R/at Chagaletfi Village,
Jala Hobli, Bagalur Post,
Bangalore-560 077.
» » R/:;t«Ch_a"ga1etti Village,
A »-Hobfi, P0511,
.3angaior¢--55o 077. . . . . RmP0N1:>Em's
~. A This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
* _ ' .,.'2"27_.5of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
. order dated 20.6.2008 passed in M.A.No.6/2008 by the
District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V,
3. Sri.Laksh1ninarayana,
S10 Late Mtmeerappa,
Aged 46 years,
R/at Chagaletti Village,
Jala Hobli, Bmalur Post, 1 '
BaI1ga1ore-560 077.
4. Smt.Mm31'1akshima',
W/0 Late Krishxmppa,
Aged 48 years, ~
R/at Chagaletfi '
Jala Hobli, Bagaltzrfksst; 'L
Banga1ore~56O 077,_ 7
5. % _
S/0 A
A8C<1..31"".Yf5¥3li3a .,
R/Zat 'uflfiage, _
Jaia P£ob1i,%%E3ag£=1U1"%v %
Bangalore---5V6tZi 10.7'? ~ . 4 .~
6.
.. /0 Late
A.ged% Qgzyears'- ..... ..
a.*ai}*
Bangalore Rum} District, Bangalore, true copy of which
is produced at Armexura---A and etc.
%é'5i*'""
This petition coming on for pneliminmy
this day, the Court made the following: ~_'
ORDER
The ma: Court by me “i9,li’2;2o0t?Alll ll
passed an order on I.A.No.:ll.V A’
rejected the plea of hefiuolzer’
injuncfion. On appeal,’ Distzfirietee asvisessions
Judge in M.A.No.6/ Hence the
present
t ” ~ _eoiLmsel for the petitioner
submltéetl* should have considered
his ‘is an application to restram the
l V. * the property. He further
the defendants in the wlitten statement
have statetl that they would not alienate the property.
The Court has also noticed that defendant No.3 has
that he has no intention to sell Item No.3 of the
VA eifit schedule property. ‘I’his is based on h~8 of
the written statement of the defendants.
KQA”
3. In View of the statement made by
No.3 that he has no irltenticm thé ‘
petitionar being wen A ‘iv nix.
gievance against the x0I’dé}”°5′>:._’ V _V
The petition caemi.r_{f<;»:f mg;-its,
rejected.