High Court Karnataka High Court

R Seetharam vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 9 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
R Seetharam vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 9 October, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
3 WP 28794/2009

4 K PAVITHRA
D / O R KRISHNA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
DOOR N010,
3RD CROSS
P.V.N.LANE T}-IIGALARPET
BANGALORE 2.

5 K CHANDRAMMA   ~
W/O R KRIS}-INASWAMY I
AGED ABOUT so YEARS
DOOR NO.10.
3RD CROSS
P.V.N.LANE THIGALARPET    p   
BANGALORE 2.  .  RESPONDENTS

[SRI.H.T.NARENDRA ,’ Hceré; FOR .13″ ‘ ~– _

THIS WRIT PETITION Is I*’ILED1UI_’.J.DER’~ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION AOFINVDIA pI:zA:r1I»IG “I15 DIRECT THE R1
TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION Ac;;AINis’Ij:’1″1~I1«:”~~.’NSPONDENTS 2 TO 5 VIDE
ANNEX-A DTD 18.9.2U?}9A1V.D&E’FC’., ‘ *

Ti-IIS ____ ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARINGQTHIS ‘Om, THVEVCQURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

The petition’er v;a’;1ciRues*pox1dent No.2 are brothers residing

“‘~s.eparaéiteIy_,__pAVbut hotzifever-«in the same property. It is the case of

that there was a partition in the family.

NeVerthe1ess’.V’Vi}Ie’ ‘Respondent No.2 is interfering with the

‘ ‘possessi~on.I..Hence, this writ petition.

The question of granting the relief sought for in this

VA petition does not arise. If the petitioners possession isfl

3 WP 28794/2009

threatened, it is aiways open for him to protect his possession
by filing a suit and seek the necessary interim order. The
petitioner cannot rush to this Court under Article 226 and seek
protection. Reserving Iiberty to the petitioner to file a. S:E:)i:_tr,~f[_h€

petition is rejected.

3. lVEr.H.T.Narendra Prasad,…..1earne’d'”” ”

Government Pieader appearing for

permitted to file memo of appearance within

JL