.. mmumumm HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGl-I COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
IN '11:: mm comm or nnmmn AI' .V
nmzn EH15 ran 29" my or my;
anion' A
nu: mwnms nn..rcrst;fIL:9i:
mp
Hrmhgnoa Cntinixii
Since docoaud V
Hr.Ramrd E_'r'a:__nci,ra' John _F'oVrn_un&eea
41 yrs. a;3'¢'3.-'V Foihindéa
rfo No._:l..EJ,*»v .E;;_.i.--:habnta_y
KuIba1a€Hi;.1"i_..s,. ;
nap Attorney
Hra._Naro&11__V _ _- .. Petitioner
:ngr.%§r1'3o§é.¢gai»{"ei:1, Giridhar H, J|.dv..}
..... 3
, filo lutcitvficbcrt Lrornandoa
- .. Rospondnnt
sat puuhpuiatm, adv for an 3 L
. Adv for cavutorfreupondont)
v " ~ This petition is filed under Section 115
f:.£FC'j.'agninat the order dated 20-4-2006 panned
in " RR No.52/2004 an the file of I
A;4a1.1:ustr1ct Judge, n.x., llangaloro
'"diamiaaing the revision petition filed against
" the order and ducreo dated 2-I-7-2004 passed in
mu: No.37/1999 on the fill of tho I Add1.Civi1
Judge (Jr.Dn), Hangaloro dismissing tho
petition filed under Section 27[2)(L} of
IH V)fVJ.VM)-lH\.l Jn Iunnq . ....... . . ___
...... ........ 'gun. \Il Iv1nIIr|Iru'\rl naun uvunl ur Iv-uuuuruv-\ rllurl LUUKI Ur ILAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT
K.R.Jtct crud allowing tho petition
auction 27:2: la) (b) ed: (9') :3) (:3 or
eviction.
this petition having ho¢n_--":a.gifet#§d«A
ordora. coming on for pr¢;h6un.::pmgn;t_TV6£ Vordors
this day. the Court made t:_11o:_-£9.1la§ri.n§':""
onqshf
This ravisigp by tho
petitioner/tenant" order dated
20-04-200115, V' '11" Additional
District Hangaloro,
in the judgment
and % passed by the 1au-nod
1"' Judge [Jr Dvn] llangaloru
d,5'f:'~3'§L'24._-0TA;7i'0£!.1!«'in H.R.C a1I1999.
can of that respondent herein is
t1’is.t,..__”‘c-.:r::iAgina11},r tho suit schedule property
..hql§ngh to one sn Rae Sahel: Batista: John
&’fiVJ’t3a’:oph A. rarnnndus. One By-man Want: the
” of 1″ respondent and father at
respondent 2 to 7 before the trial court took
tho said property under a permanent lama
n new-rs
. ……..m u. .u-mu:-unnn ruun uuulu Ur KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
dated 01-06-1912. Later in a family pm}-tiitiion
in the family of 5:1 Rso Baheh
Joseph A. Foxnmxioz the
the shun of the husbsxici r;f..:’t«Ias1
heroin and tho husbsnd’««..g£ ;ca1§om” 3.1;;
s will in zaspogt –.._sai£1 ~ in
favour of the u the said
will as! 3411971 dated
09’02’13?2j.f« the original
pot court! roapandont
hsxsin.__ pTt;i1»;’:’¢-….___zaspondsnts 1 to 7 before
the if21:§1 with the permanent
lsgisb fsvc-ur of 8″‘ respondent
c-assent and without the consont ot
of the petition schsduls
and in mm i 1*
the use in raven: of tho tsths: at
9 to 13 and the fsthsz: of
-~–*:rospondsnts1-I. to 19 and in turn thoy parted
with the possession of the sun to the
pradncosscrs or 20″‘ respondents and as per:
YQW __ /,.r–*/
.. \
C27 .
.-…-.. …… ……….. …. av-u\IIr’IIru\.l’| mun x.-..-um ur nnnnu-unru-\ 1-nun \..uuKI ur IKRJKNAIAKA HIGH (JJUKT
decree passed 29%! zefiflndent sold
property in favour of 21″‘ .reapondet{t”‘r®1:__V”.
property was in poasesrion
roapondont before the court A.TkutVj-ethfare
was violation or the.»e’1ease”A.¢ra¢ta¢i’
or the original filed the
eviction rourt under
s%ocA21 :11 la] and us] at
K. R. C \ :”‘t:11at respondents
have and that they are
in that the petition
achod’u..!._e’ . fin required by the
for her own occupation and
i”ui;he”a__roapersdonte before the trial court
permanent buildings in the
pi’tit_ien’:”‘rclwedu1e premises without the consent
.0; the owner or the property and that the
“‘-._Vra.-fporzdanta in the trial court acquired
” V.–ropuate premises other than the schedule
premiums. The said eviction petition filed by
the respondent herein came to he allowed,
/ K)
§”x_2!’f’é:L–:”Z/’
Lg’ I l
. …-uuu-unnn HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
which has bun conriz.-mad by the d1atr1Vt:t”}:’–t’¢11xt
in 1lev.Pot.N=o.52f2004. Hence thtf’
has come up with this potiAtim;:..’_4′ ” V’
3. Heard the arg:upont6~,_:§£
the parties and point
that arises for my ¢§§iég%&t;an it; ihothnz
the order qf that inccrrect,
1110931 “I§I’c’.°-v—-v-=,§xat ordoz-5 ?
4. ,;:e–sjp§nd&nt..v’vi:a:ora the trial
con1:t- the widow of late
L.5.cutizLh.:;,tt _ ” only contesting
.§vVrnap.r;i5c’1uout trial court and she died
the course at pondancy or
proceedings, the respondent
horoifi wi:tthé;ut soaking setting aside of the
‘Ofifit§fi§tagafiE or petition, rapoztod that the
‘*$O:;O¢.¢§ns&d renpondgnt no. 21 has not left behind
O J.-oprcaantntivo and the trial court
thorn being any application aullnitted
I\u4ng._ ..__—
for continuation of the proceeding, continued
/1′,
/
cf» ‘
||.| \-f\l’HI\-nu\n.n1 n-s
_ ….,…’. .. ……………u-. nlurl uuuxt Ur mmnmm I-HGH COLERT or KARNATAKA HIGH coum
with the eviction proceadinga and pzaxikfiingad
‘Chi! judgment and mzder allowing
filed by the rawandant 11«_(u.t,o»._i.n. V’
5. The case or the ;V$’sat::it.ion:u.a:gAA’Ahar§§.ii’vis
that the deceased 5
will at samba-_v 6319.? same
ragiatezed as 3140/91 at
pages 2:: 22 ‘V hm: no. III
J:-eg:i.as1:4La;’«’:§§<';i:."".'i_¥ii"'EQ the office of the
and the petitianor:
hareiafbfr; John Fe),-znandsa, being
lnggte-a “”:11xide_;-. will left. behind by 1:11:
d4§§35£¢¢$g:ei!£:ax3.A.ra;§§'<::i::'iéx1t no. 21/Agnes Cutina having
about the passing caf the order: of
against the legator, pxetarrad the
petiticn befoxa the diatzict judge,
4} with than petition he filed two
'application under Grant 41 Rule 27 of CPC
an-axing permission to racmiva rogistxation
copy of the znulgani ezzfiared between John
nnuqiurnl V:nI\rflfllIl vn uuwuuw-ur-\|\r-I. Ina-\.7H mwun: vr l\F\l\iVlI-IE!-\l\l'\ flit??? LUUKI ur NAKIVAIAKA H36" COURT
Jaaeph Earnandas and oth-ax: Marcel _,'%.§q1§e.ira
dated 01.08.1912 and the notarized fl1_Ta.
original will at the dacgggsgd 2'i"'°*–
in ms rm. 9711999 Agnes; c;u:i:$u%%%
affidavits sworn by tIig«–..gtt§'-afing Qiifififigfififl
thfl said 9:11}. ~§f_err£én§i§_s Iziz
van, but the 1§a.{£:ed4–_%1:f=:v" District
" 'Jsumuittad by
Judga mj o<:;':a d
the that reviaion
filed ____ the cards:
pasafigd . Hence being highly
has zzomc before this
cqgigtt u.with'” t 1 1::iV.’a fizvision petition.
of the rwiaion petitianer in
tiim: tenancy datwd G1-QB-1912 exacted in
nITx;rozi:1~: of one Symon Irsoza is ax permanent
by way of Hoolgeni and there want no
” ‘” fox*1’.eitu.re clause and raspanadantflandlord
could not resume the proparty: that in a
civil suit: in 0.3. Na. 2?2.(19′?3 batsmen the
luau: up-up
E
E
E
a
E
5
E
3
>
J
C
2
E’.
i
E
z
:
t
H
E
D
3
J
12
9.
I:
M
5
LL
0
E
19
at xmzlgani holding. Hence he pra¥fi§’.:.:””?for
allowing this nevision patitian
aside that oxzdsars passed by the
‘T. Amittadly the
predeceaansxa were thfi thu!*
petiticm sclmdulg g-fifififiisé-s_, “tlzntyvii their
predecessors have 1;s_«i1a ‘e-<:1i:" gaid prapmtty
in £avong..:: é.t under a.
permanarlif %%::as’§.:V.§rif;V'”‘ :;’.;’:s”§i.3 war the said
propvuié-gfgf inndn by am Smt. Agnes
Cutino:;2’1.””‘v tie-gfigahdééfit before the trial court,
of the said Smt.Agnna Cutino
—jzso have purchased the petitian
s’_:”:’.i:£ed:_&1.3.v’§:’:~’i__iazamiawa under: a court aucticn and
v-*a’5~~ fioaneanion of the name. The said Agnes
.Vc::ii”::ino has no legal heirs to succzoad to bar
§out;ate. The raapendsnt was not made an {‘1 party
baron: the txial aaurt, afitar than death. at
csnly contesting raapondent n.21/S:at.A9’nes
z.-/
‘/ ~ &
-u-nu -no-u-urns: wpu —-.–.-.-
URI
‘ ‘ ~ « mama: nation.
5.)!’ l\l”\I\l’¢P’|Il”|i\l”\ nuvnl \a\.n.u\| Va’ I\r’I.l’\I1t1ur1:u-1 u.
13
accepted and relied an without the pram: at
the valid. execution of the same:
absence of ammo than petitioner:
atandi to challenge the aide-2. «_’
trial court, wan it
made: the said will, .p«a1::;i._t§. §:i§rV: has
przobated the 331:1″311.1;”‘b1}’VL_:’§§%.gb1i§h’-Ahis title
in a pzoparly suit, he is
not a:11$::ii:1,~s:e’:, Vt;’V;;s £0: in the
above revision ” fxisyo noticed
that the took the
possession ck!’ Jihs promises
and_ the has already been
<:soi1Vaj§aac:i"; revision patitian has
the petitioner has mt
trim and appropxiate relief. as
. "'I:his__ petition dams not survive
/E'?
E
.. ….–…..nu-uu-u mun \.UUKl Ur KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-I-l_GH CO
9. Accondingly this revision petition
diapoud of. with liberty to the
potitiannr to prosecute the randy 4.
to him undo: the law. A