1..
iN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGVALORE
DATED THIS THE 20″‘ DAY OF JANUAR§(“‘fiO’1R§}–.:’V’2.V
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. }USTlCE::’§é;iR\1}§I\’D”‘._B§f”R2§R’E[§ii5j(_
WRIT PETITION NQ;654IO’F_§()f)9(‘GM–CI?C)
BETWEEN :
Swarnaiatha Kesha_\{9′.,_ .
Wife of K.Ke$hava K.;ini,
Aged6Iyea1*s, _ ‘_ «V :
Residing 21? V§aishali~’A;3afime.t1t_$,fA
Oppgsfie 44t0i:A;I§/_I_angz1:._]2%; Stgdiuni; V .
Gandhi ‘ =
I.\’I..21n.%.3’i0fe4§7;5.O93. ‘R PETYFIONER
(By S11Vi*i_.Si1;”ic%h£:1Vt”
AND:
– _ 1. S;’r.Ri.:.I\1.R,23enelU/5{n’na–ppa Nayak,
Offifianel Srinivas Nayak,
V «A:gf;d’vfi’E3Q{}; 54 years,
‘ Apafirn€_ni N0.Al.
zS”rVi,I{.i34’l.Vyacii Vittal Pai,
F21I.her’s name not known,
AA Aged about 69 years,
V” Apaxftment No.A2,
I’-J
Sri.U.Vasanth Kini.
Son of R.M.Kini,
Aged about 69 years.
Apartment N0.A3.
S1nt.Vij2ty3 K.Shen0y,
Wife01″‘;\/Ianei Kamalakshzt She:}<')»yg' 3
Aged about 84 years,
Apartment N0.A4,
S1'i.M.N.Kava, _
Father's name not knwn, = A
Aged about 69 yeat–:<jf 1
Apartment No.A6 A
Smt.P1'abha'«Ma,–ni, __ «. ._
Husband'-3 nanfine r1vc):t'E<n;i3wn.,4* 7 V
A ged ii'1b(_)t_it' {)4 z1t'S'.'~.f]: 4/ , .'
Ap;1rvtv:newnt'''NQA7..1" V' A
St*'i..M'_ V2t:'e;1_n't niat_h'." __
Son' of M .Ra=md'a Kaizfinath,
A ged a"t:t0 ut 64' .yeatfs;' "
' ;A"p3,rt me nt' Ne. B l ,
' V. H St'_i;K..S4ti1nendra Prabhu.
V _ '' Faititer"~§;"nanj.e not known,
_ " –._/~\ged''.'aboet'64 years.
A Apa;'tr_nenAt No.83,
St'1'..Yashztvant Patil.
A 'AA"««Fatl1e1"s name not known,
A' -Aged about 49 years.
Apartment No.84.
I0.
13.
S1″i.K.Vitta1ldas Pralbhu.
Father’s name not known,
Aged about 68 years,
Apzirtnaeltt No.B5.
Smt.Vijayalz=1kshm.i R Shenoy,
Wife of H.R.Shenoy.
A ged about 54 years
Apzlrtment No.87.
Sri.Srinivz1.~; S11et£ig-mg
Father’s name not ,k.11()w:1g”” * A
Aged about 66 yam; 1
Apartment No.C2, A’
Sri.G()P€’:~la§<A1Ti$b11za5Ku§3?.heka1'§"' .. A
F21theI'7.s'-na:':je %;_1()~t kncmjxl, T .
A geditbo-L1"t_».4"9' ' x A '
A
Sri. Venk:-ite 'cIt.'I41Vi1'ie.l__}x.u " H
Son .__of H. I~"ia.11Vu'z11;:1»1timA' Kztlnzttla,
AgedA':ab<)'t1tVo4.-_ y'c-.;1rs.~.- "
4; 'Ap;1rtznetat.. No.C4;
_ not known,
' -.Vt«Agetj_v»21boui 54 years.
A Ap;1rmj.–ent No.C5,
A A Son of Pfttbhflkili' Pai,
..5Aged about 54 years,
Sri_.Pratapeha11dra Rai,
Apartment No.C7,
Z
I8.
19.
Sri.Capt.E\E.U.Jaya1’am,
Fathefs Ilililléi not known,
Aged about 59 years.
Apartment No.33.
S:’i.PurL1sho{tham Pai,
Father’s name not known,
Aged about (34 years.
Ap’c1i'[l”E1f;3l1I No.94.
Sri.V.Gopaial03.
é
Represented by its Secretary
And also through their Counsel in the Trial Court:
Sri.A.A.Kini.,
Advocate,
Manta Advocate,
PVS Junction,
Kodialbail, ,
Mangalore–575 O03. ‘RE_4SPQN’D’ENT.S.
‘J: ‘-‘< :1' :1: :5:
. v. .- > .
This Writ Petition is filedluiiéier Artie–lels”226 of the
Constitution of India praying to ea_ll’»f()r’t.the records of?O.S.No.383
of 2004, now pending .ih’~~the cfourt’ ls”-..Addition21i Civil Judge
(Senior Division”) Mungalme far::d ”
his Petliitionjicsoiiiing for preliminary hearing this
day, the–.Court’rnatie-~.the. fo’ll_o”V-sing: ~
ll ii JUDGMENT
gyresenlti ‘pet-iti'()ri is filed challenging the 1″ram_ing of the
_ i’ellO’-uziliig the trial court.
the plaintiff further proves that none of the
Apai”trii.e_ti~t owners, including herself, have executed any Deed of
C’-.iA’p:.1rtime11ts as contemplated under the Karnataka Apartment
6»
(3
Owners Act, 1972 and also not submitted before. the Registrar
under the Registration Act. 19()8′?.”
2. This according to the Counsel for the,dp–etitip()riei*r
incorrect statement of the issue that wou1d.ari:§e oriithe pileadings.i’
It is the petitioner’s specific case”.__th2tt the.’teqt,tirente’i1ti”of
submitting the Deed of Apa1’tthent”and the oifI5eciarati()n
after registration under the=~Reg’istrati’o.r_r i908i,”a’s provided in
the Karnataka Apartment_ is a mandate
under the Ap;tm;i:n’t O_wne’rs’hi«p.v–Aet and does not refer
to anyfisuchi*p5rovis:’toi1_iun.der tiiie””‘Registration Act, 1908. The
incorrect’frarningoi’..iissues_L’as=”afi)resaid, would iead to a Skewed
opinion of the ntrié1’1’coui”t if the parties are ready to go to the triai
court on the said issue. This contention would have to be viewed
witthpt«re’gard.__to~:;tiie position of law. The position of law as would
fiou} reading of Section 13 of the Karnataka Apartment
Qiii’nei*ship Act, E972 would not stand aitered by the trial court
amving at a different finding or opinion insofar the submission
%