High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri Nandkishor S/O Balakrishna … vs Shri Balakrishna S/O Ramasukh … on 6 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shri Nandkishor S/O Balakrishna … vs Shri Balakrishna S/O Ramasukh … on 6 April, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
wp 62358.09

: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD _ _
DATED THIS THE (am DAY OF APRIL 2099" . 3.: "' ' 

BEFORE   >-

THE HSNBLE MR.JUsT1cE;"'AJ1ii'_' ;r."c;LiN.1_A:., :   

WRIT PETITION No.€f2_3'5$12(iO€3(§3?xI§C'I§fii}A=.:._'~»  

BETWEEN:

SHRI NANDKISHOR , -

S/O BALAKRISHNA MAN*I'R_1V_ '  _ V' =

AGED 5OYEARS,O'C.C.:B?JSIN"r3SS  .  »

R/O JOLAD BAWA}.\1RjJAMAKH;*§ND'I,A '  V' 

537, 301 BISIf..-B'A(32XL_.IsZOT,'_     , ...I-'E'I'I'I'IONER

(BY SRi';._HP{RiSH: 1
AND: V'  

1.

3331?: EAAMKRISEINA,
t3,,/3:) RAMASUKH 2v:;=;.~r~:*1*R1

ggxiz-P; ‘IQ “armges, occ; AGRICULTEJRE

.;¢}

g :5;<2a¢s,i~:;1,L,-A;

— . wvgo B!&£;;A.KE\’ISHNA Mama},
AGE 53 $2233, HOUSEHOLD womq,

12AJ’KU1iViAR, 8/O BALAKRESHNA MANTRI,

‘ .E}ECEASED. BY HIS L.Rs

SA)’-si§N:TA, we RAJKUMARN MANTR1,

AGE 41 YEARS, OFF’: HOSUEWIFE,

V Wrkfig AMIT, szo RAJKUMAR M&NTRi,

AGE E9 YEARS, STUDENF.

SB) AMRUTA, S,/O RAJKUMAR MANTRI,
AGE 17 YEARS, STUDENT.

wp 623581139

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF’ JOLAD BAZAAR,
JAMAKHANDE 58′?’ 301, DIST BAGALKOT.

(aw) MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL-‘ = < fT- ''
MOTHER sum « «

4. YALLAPPA, S/O YALLAPPA BELAWADI
AGE 49 YEARS, cacc: DOC’ITOF?,_ ” ‘
R/O JOLAD BAZAAR, JAMKE£A1V’.DI ._ _ ”
587′ 301, DIST. BAGALKUF. ” …R.§3SF{)NDE}NTS

‘FHiS PETITiON IS ‘F’1LED«’UNDE-IE £:RTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CoNs’r1TUT:0’i~;£QF”«_ II§EDiA”‘-,f’RA’fIN(3 TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-E THE ORDER I3-.A:£’E:D5-;.’1v.1/08 PASSEED ON
I.A.NO,V IN o.s.N0.241é1.204.. cm 31’HE:. Fi{;£-“J FGELLOWING:

DE R

_”}’hc§’ Lf;~vé§titi(;>:I*;.{5:19’~.V_191e1§§ flied a suit for partzition and

..,_Asep§;*af§£:: possxéssie-:1′ to the extant of 1/4&1 share.

“1f§§11giency of the suit, an applicatian is filed

§iy file V§)I”€)i;_s{i!iS€d defendant to come on record. 01′; the

grouridgfislat he has purchased the Suit property through

N0. 1 pursuant to a regstered sale deeé.

2. The warned triai Judge, having regard to the

nature 015′ the suit, has permitted the garoposeci appiicant

wp 62338.09

:3:

to some on record as suppiementaxy defefidé§r1~’:.LL:’–

said order is questioned in this 7s_xz:.%i1:_gJet:Itit§’r3″;–Ae 4′

3. The learned V,eQunselA.»”‘appeafilm’g Toff

gjalaintifipetitioxzer su’an1its “‘ tfie-. hit by
Section 52 of the Vofi. ‘ineasmuch as
the sake has taken pl.a c_:e, -fiendency of the

4. Appare11§ijr:, Z: Heferidarzt has
purchased Vpendezacy of the suit
certainly be weuldilaw. The learned trial

Judge “has”~e3:e:r<3ise§1 his' Eiseretion and is of the View

. that $5" ;:;._2 proper party.

*5′. to this fact: i am of the View

tE;af4’iff1te19fere:1ce is :10: calieci for. Rejected. .

see/~
EUDGE

kmv